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."

Comments

Why?

[chota]

Maybe someone's mad they didn't get to host the Olympics?? Sheesh.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, ass hole. 6 coordinated attacks planned in 24 hours? Right...

Re:Why?

[nairobiny]

Here in London we don't particularly appreciate your cretinous attempts at humour. Why don't you grow up?

Re:Why?

[Magic5Ball]

You can plan for months and decide to execute (or not) in minutes. See D-Day, Pearl Harbour, 9/11, etc.

Re:Why?

[AsbestosRush]

In other news, Alcoa (AA - NYSE) is reporting earnings as a result of skyrocketing sales of Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil.

Re:Why?

[PurpleWizard]

I suspect the bombers just got unlucky with their nasty plan. More unfortunate timing or slightly different planning and maybe things would have been much worse.

Re:Why?

[Adams4President]

The bombers were really very considerate, if you think about it.

Great! Let's give these guys the Nobel Peace Prize then. You f***ing imbecile. They weren't considerate, they deliberately detonated the bombs during rush hour traffic, when the greatest volume of passengers would be present. Only through their own stupidity were there so few casualties.

Never fear though, originally terrorism was only about second or third priority at the G8, but guaranteed it is now first.

You sit there and say that it couldn't be Muslim extremists and then you go ahead and defend them just in case they are. Asshole.

Re:Why?

[Adams4President]

And one more thing. I've never cheered when a stray missile/bullet killed innocent Iraqis or Afghans. I've always had sympathy while still believing the war is just. But perhaps I should be more like you and argue that the Arabs deserve it since they've bred these terrorists. How's that for hateful?

Re:Why?

[letxa2000]

FWIW, mass transit just isn't looking as appealing as it used to. Let's see 9/11 (4 planes). Madrid (multiple trains). London (trains and bus). Israel (buses on a regular basis).

All in all, driving my own SUV or car-pooling with the neighbor is really looking pretty attractive.

Re:Why?

[ssimontis]

Do you have any feelings? Are you a human being? DEATHS ARE NOT STATISTICS. 1 death is a horrible thing. If you still don't believe this fact, try going to tell the victims' families what happened.

Re:Why?

[erosannin]

Here here! Sympathy deserved is sympathy EARNED! Hopefully the UK will respond in force, and quickly.

Re:Why?

[joggle]

You probably don't live near London. From what I've read they have some of the most congested roads anywhere and don't have room to expand highways as we can in the US.

Re:Why?

[Larry Lightbulb]

I take it you've never driven in London?

Re:Why?

[prefec2]

Terrorism is bad. I think we all know that. Right? Even the person who posted the post you are repling to.

But the question is still. Why?

And the answer is quite simple. We did it first. We did it in Iran (19th century) and we helped the Sha. We did in Irak, in Lebanon, in Palestine. We support corrupt leaders in Saudi Arabia and in teh far east, we occupied Afghanistan.

On the other hand. We sold weapons to everyone (just for the profit). We trained these terrorists or their leaders. We gave them money and we still do business with their supporters.

We ignore the wish of most people in the near and middle east. And we negate their culture and try to encourage them to use our.

So it is very clear why their are angry and aswoon (hope that's the right word). So they try to express their anger and fear. And try to fight us.
And they will continue, because they have nothing to loose.

Re:Why?

[alcmaeon]

Even more likely, it is becasue subways and buses are easy to get on and off and leave things (like bombs) in the rush.

Re:Why?

[alcmaeon]

I agree. I can't even remember the last time I heard about a bicycle hijacking.

Re:Why?

[dual_boot_brain]

Who really knows?

Let me guess, just like 9-11 this was the work of the evil Zionists and the CIA?

And when I consider the number of my brothers and sisters that have died because of British and U.S. actions, it really is impossible for me to sympathise.

You think it was bad before? These "considerate" homicidal maniacs have just driven the British people deper into the arms of the U.S. neoconservitive movement. How many Brits will protest when British intelligence/security services start raiding mosques and giving the Imans a one-way ticket to gitmo? How hard do you think the police will work when some gang of skinheads burns down a apartment building full of Arab/Persian immigrants? These animals have just made life harder for you and your "brothers and sisters" and you call them "considerate".

Re:Why?

[Rei]

Iraqis and other Muslims have killed far more civilians in Iraq than the US ever has (even if you don't start counting until two years ago)

One thing that is interesting when you look at all of the numbers of deaths in Iraq is that they're remarkably consistant compared to past wars, despite what study you look at. You get numbers of ~10-20k civilian deaths directly related to combat, ~15-20k iraqi military deaths directly related to combat, and ~150k total additional deaths over the same time period prior (i.e., most extra deaths weren't due to direct combat, but the deteriorating crime, health, water, etc situations).

About half of the civilian deaths were in the "initial combat phase". You'll http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/bodycount41. php?ts=1120756188count.net/database/bodycount41.ph p?ts=1120756188">notice that most civilian deaths during that time were inflicted by the US military, while you'll notice that most recently were inflicted by the insurgency.

All in all, it looks like a pretty even tossup of US and insurgency-caused civilian deaths. We have far greater firepower (and use far greater firepower), but use it with more accuracy and discression in most cases.

Re:Why?

[fijimf]

Those are justifications, not causes.

And apart from the vacuous, post hoc, reasoning of those justifications, it's not terribly clear who you mean by 'we'.

Re:Why?

[Floody]

1 death is a horrible thing.

Why? Seriously, why is a normal expected event, part of the cycle of all living things so horrible?

The horror of the attack on London is not the death; it is the continuing escalation of violence that strikes fear into the hearts of many living people. In response, the west will now feel great outrage and redouble their efforts at "rooting out" the terrorists; perhaps even going as far as beginning to officially demonize all people of arabian lineage (based on how these things have worked in the past).

Thus the cycle continues, until at last, large-scale war finally erupts. It's been how many thousands of years since civilization was first born, and yet mankind, as a whole, still has not realized how this works?

Re:Why?

[Siener]

FWIW, mass transit just isn't looking as appealing as it used to. Let's see 9/11 (4 planes). Madrid (multiple trains). London (trains and bus). Israel (buses on a regular basis).

All in all, driving my own SUV or car-pooling with the neighbor is really looking pretty attractive.

Ok, let's look at this. So far 37 people are confirmed dead. More people than that die in car crashes in the UK every week.

4 million people use the London underground every day. These were the first deaths in years. You are much safer there than in a car.

Re:Why?

[Emperor Shaddam IV]

There are a lot of muslims living in London. Especially in the area near Aldgate station in East London. Your "considerate" bombers probably killed some of your muslim brothers and sisters this morning. Along with many other innocent people...

Re:Why?

[MillionthMonkey]

Not many people realize that overall terrorism doesn't really cause that many deaths. Your chance of dying in a terrorist attack is vanishingly small. They are certainly high profile deaths, but not many. The point of these attacks isn't so much to kill people as it is to cause political change.

We need to remember to be very suspicious of people who are attempting to score political points from this. They are the attacks' intended beneficiaries. I've been seeing them all over the Internet this morning, cashing in on this tragedy.

Re:Why?

[Hungry Student]

I think you've missed the point. The point is that these deaths were not expected, nor did they occur under circumstances that are easily reconcilable.

The horror of the attack on London is that there are people, living among us, who are capable of committing indiscriminate murder. The unmitigated, extreme intervention into what you term the "cycle of all living things" is what makes these deaths so horrific. Nowhere in any cycle of life does "blown up" feature. Someone is to blame for these murders, and the fact that these events were so sudden and unexpected makes it much harder to deal with.

Have some common decency, not even 12 hours have passed.

Re:Why?

[sickofthisshit]

The point is, though, I knowingly and voluntarily accept the risks of driving on the roads, or even eating fatty foods.

I don't choose to get randomly blown up by deranged folks trying to make a political point. They can blab all they want to on the Web or on Arab satellite TV about how the Zionist forces are responsible for all their suffering, and more power to them. But pardon me if I get pissed off when they start blowing up random London commuters.

While I agree that there are opportunists of all kinds who will take advantage of our grief to advance their own warped agenda, there is still a distinct moral difference between death from accidental and natural causes and death from deliberate terrorist attacks (or military action), which justifies getting more pissed off about a quantitatively small group of deaths.

Yes, some Zen Buddhist will claim he can as easily accept death from a suicide bomber as dying in ones sleep after 95 years; expecting all of us to live to the same standard is unfair.

Re:Why?

[smittyoneeach]

tell us something about the complete destruction of Buddhism in Afghanistan, of Zoroastranism in Persia, of Christianity in Iraq

The bolded parts, at least, are not factual.
When ranting,
a) have enough sack to attach your name
b) get the facts straight
Rants need to be bulletproof to do anything other than bolster the position of the attacked party.

Re:Why?

[BungoMan85]

"America does give billions of dollars to Egypt to support a regime which suppresses political action of all kinds, including Islamist parties."

And if we stopped giving aide (not only to Egypt but any nation that suppress their people) how long do you think it would be before the left cried foul?

Re:Why?

[northcat]

Yeah, that's right, let's keep making politically correct statements that the citizens of US and UK have no responsibility over their countries' actions and that the terrorists are killing "innocent" civilians. You people keep invading everyone and killing everyone like bullies and you expect others to feel sympathy for you when about 40 of your people die? Don't play the "innocent civilians are dead, so let's not talk politics" card. If you really believe in that, then you should've shut the fuck up during the entire Iraq war - the lives of "innocent" Iraqi civilians is worth just as much as the lives of Americans or Brits. I'm sure more than 40 Iraqi civilians are dead. But every time I see a report about American troops "accidentally" killing them, all I see are people defending the troops or some other political shit - not even one man offers his condolences for the dead people. You kill them and they kill you in return - you have armies to do that, they have to do it through organisation like Al-Qaeda. As simple as that.

Re:Why?

[MillionthMonkey]

The point is, though, I knowingly and voluntarily accept the risks of driving on the roads, or even eating fatty foods.

But you also knowingly and voluntarily accept the risks associated with terrorism. Are you not flying anymore? Are you refusing to visit major cities with high profile targets? Both would be strange decisions given the numbers involved.

I don't choose to get randomly blown up by deranged folks trying to make a political point.

Of course you don't choose to get blown up (unless you're a suicide bomber). Are people who live in wooden buildings choosing to die in fires? No, they're accepting the risk of a fire, which is different.

While I agree that there are opportunists of all kinds who will take advantage of our grief to advance their own warped agenda, there is still a distinct moral difference between death from accidental and natural causes and death from deliberate terrorist attacks (or military action), which justifies getting more pissed off about a quantitatively small group of deaths.

Yep, terrorism is immoral, I agree. And this does justify getting more pissed off than if it were some other small group of deaths. I'm pissed off too. But that has little to do with what I said, which was about assessment of risk. Don't confuse the acceptance of the risk of terrorism with the question of whether terrorism is immoral or not. It's like confusing the acceptance of the risk of dying in a building fire with the immorality of arson. We still build wooden houses even though arson is immoral, and we still fly in planes and ride buses even though terrorism is immoral.

Yes, some Zen Buddhist will claim he can as easily accept death from a suicide bomber as dying in ones sleep after 95 years; expecting all of us to live to the same standard is unfair.

I'm no Zen Buddhist, and I wouldn't live to that standard either. Fortunately I don't have to. The risk of death from a suicide bomber is much, much lower than the chance that I'll die in my sleep when I'm 95, so I don't need to "easily accept death" of both kinds- and neither do you.

You should recognize, that getting you pissed off is the goal all along. They are hoping to provoke a response. You can lobby in favor of a police state for yourself. You can push for a war, which they can then participate in (this is not a peace-loving enemy). They hate secularism, they hate our culture, and they hate our way of life. I'm pissed off too, and rightly so. But I think our responses to these things usually play into their hands. So it helps to actually gauge the risk that these attacks present, which after all is still pretty small- unless you include the risks inherent in an ill-conceived foreign policy that feels like retribution but that actually strengthens the position of extremism in that part of the world.

Re:Why?

[whatch durrin]

The difference in one word: intent.

I don't know where you're from, but it's the reason why in many places there are laws on the books that differentiate between intent when it comes to the reason someone was killed.

Most people understand this. Apparently you and those that blindly join al Qaeda don't. That's ok, though, because as we've seen today, life will go on. I'm a US citizen, and can say I'm proud of Londoners for their courage in returning to their normal lives.

Personal liberty will win out over extreme Islamic fanaticism and intolerance.

Re:Why?

[letxa2000]

Think about where the closest world-class opera house, ballet theater, symphony orchestra, art museum, ..., well you get the idea, are to you. Chances are it will be hard to find parking, and rush hour will be a major nightmare.

Who cares? Is someone a better person because they go to the opera, ballet, or symphony? These things bore me. Sure, I'll enjoy listening to a symphony while I do something else. Like drive to the mountains to enjoy a weekend of camping, or hiking through the desert and enjoying what nature has to offer along with my friends and family.

Some of the best things this world has to offer are most decidedly not in the city. And, for that matter, public transportation is available to very few of the best things this world has to offer.

Sure, you can park your SUV in your driveway, park your wide ass on your sofa, and tune in "American Idol" 15 minutes after leaving work. But some of us aspire to something more.

Huh? How did you get to this psuedo-conclusion from my original posting saying that maybe I prefer to drive a SUV than to take public transportation?

Re:Why?

[bleckywelcky]

9 am is rush hour over there? Sheesh, maybe you brits need to be less sluggish in the morning. Over here, rush hour is at 7:30 am and I try to leave for work by 7 am to avoid it.

Re:Why?

[smittyoneeach]

this is a "community" I want no part of.

And yet you post.

Re:Why?

[tylernt]

"Are you not flying anymore?"

I'm not flying commerical airliners anymore, but it's not because I'm afraid of terrorist attack. It's the infringments upon my personal rights by my government that I will be subjected to if I choose to fly. Take off my shoes? Submit to a strip search? Body cavity search? Forget it. I'll walk. The terrorists have already won.

Re:Why?

[bulli]

The Anonymous Coward in the parent post, sharing his insight, says: "Yeah. Fuck Allah in the ass with a rusty mickey mouse statue."

Assuming it is a Christian point of view, it is very odd, since by saying that he insults God himself.

Nice summary on the history of the various names for God can be found here: http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/whoisAllah.htm

A selected snippet:
"There is evidence that the word Allah existed before the birth of Muhammad PBUH for thousands of years. It is probably the oldest name man used to call God. Most likely, Adam used the word Allah to call the Lord."

Re:Why?

[sickofthisshit]

Your idea of "voluntary" acceptance of terrorism is quite bizzare. As if I'm also "voluntarily" accepting the risk that an axe murderer will go on a rampage and kill me and everyone in my family. Sure, sign me up! NOT.

The risk exists, although small, but I am not accepting it voluntarily. There is no way in which I *deliberately* put my self in the way of that kind of violence. In contrast, I *deliberately* put the key in the ignition of my car, with the expectation that I will start it up, and drive on the street, and I might get run into by some teenager or cell-phone yakker.

I don't do it in the expectation that some Mafioso has connected a bomb to the ignition, or that some manager at the auto maker has decided that a known preventable risk of engine fire was not worth the extra $3.50 it would cost them to fix it, and instead chose to keep it quiet. That's the main reason why those kinds of actions are classified as crimes or torts.

Now it is true that I might *deliberately* choose to go on an airline trip. In which case I do so in the voluntary acceptance that the plane might crash. Accidents happen, but I know the NTSB and others are working to reduce these risks. I accept that. Al Qaeda may be working to *increase* these risks, and I find that UNacceptable. I accept that risk only under Osama bin Laden's *coercion,* *in*voluntarily, and that pisses me off.

I'm not an idiot living in some Pollyanna world, where I hope terrorists go away, and everyone dances in fields of daisies. I understand very well that there is a finite risk of terror attacks killing me or my loved ones, which can be increased by boneheads occupying the Oval Office. But I don't accept it *voluntarily*. That's what allows me to get pissed off at terrorists without refusing to get on an airliner or a London bus.

Re:Why?

[sickofthisshit]

Also, note that I am not suggesting a police state or random "regime change" in the Middle East are or were constructive and helpful responses against the threat. We ought to gauge our actions by a rational evaluation of the risks *added* by such actions as well as the real size of the risks avoided.

Anger does not necessarily lead to action. Sometimes no action is possible. I get pissed off if someone steals my wallet, but there isn't anything I can do about that. So I stew a bit, say a few choice words, and move on.

But simply accepting Al Qaeda's agenda and actions with a shrug, "oh, well, just one of the many risks I face getting up in the morning" seems to me the most callous and nihilistic response possible.

Go ahead, get angry. Just don't get *crazy* and *irrational* in response.

Re:Why?

[prefec2]

1. The people going to our movies and eating McJunk are not the same people blowing up our fellow citizens.
2. The point is not what you think. The point is what they think. And they think exactly the way I described it. Before you start arguing with me, try to undestand that point of view. I know this is a difficult perspective.

Instead of watching CNN and Fox, watch Aljazeera. You will see the same events but from a totally different point.

> Islam is nothing but the negation of other
> people's cultures till they all bow down in
> the direction of Mecca

Well this is bullshit. I am a Christian, but have some friends around here which Muslims. And they do not negate my culture. Besides that, (well it is a qualified but not quanitified response)
- Not all Muslims are Arabs
- Not all Muslims run around and try to kill us
- If people are murdered in Kashmir by Muslims, this does not justify bombing poeple in Iraq for instance and it make not all Muslims evil. In the same way that not all people in Western Countries are evil, just because Hitler and his fellow idiots murdered 60 million or Stalin who did quite the same in USSR.

> Come back to us then, when your mind is free
> of the ignorance, hypocrisy, and/or
> self-hatred so ambly disabled in your post.

+ I try not be ignorant, insted I try to understand other peoples point of view.
+ I do not hate my culture. Instead I love it to live here. Sometimes I am even impressed by good things, which happened lately (no sw-patents in EU and no unreadable pseudo constitution in Europe (thanks France & Nederlands)).

p.s. And no this is not a justification for murdering people in London or Madrid or New York or anywhere else.

Re:Why?

[Puba the Fool]

BBC news reported a muslim family upset because a daughter has been missing since the attacks.

Re:Why?

[Eunuchswear]

Oh you poor dear, facing terrorism for 20 years.

Let me know when you've had ~ 140 years of experience of terrorism.

(In 1867 Irish terrorists exploded a bomb in London, killing 12 people).

Re:Why?

[AoT]

So people killed accidentally do not deserve condolences?

Re:Why?

[hesiod]

> Have some common decency, not even 12 hours have passed.

A person should not change what they think or feel just because of one event. If a person is saying something other than what they think or feel, they are being dishonest. I suppose an 'answer' to that is "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all," but that would leave Washington D.C. in complete silence. Come to think of it, maybe that's NOT bad advice...

Anyway, my point is that the amount of time that has passed since something ocurred should not affect a person's viewpoint about it; with the exception of reconsidering due to new information, of course.

7 bombs

[helfen]

It's 7 for now.

Re:7 bombs

[AltGrendel]

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.

Re:7 bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

7 bombs on 7th of the 7th. Coincidence or not?

Re:7 bombs

[byolinux]

2+0+0+5 = 7 too.

I think maybe that's just reading too much into it though.

Re:7 bombs

[/ASCII]

And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

Yep, this is the apocalypse all right. We're all doomed. Doomed. DOOOOMED! I'm going to sing the doom song now. Doom de di doom - doom doom - doooom doom doom de di doom-doomed!

Re:7 bombs

[Baorc]

Actually it means something to me, well mainly that it's my birthday. Go figure. Wake up this morning, 7 bombs go off. Sheesh.

Re:7 bombs

[Cat_Byte]

This is no time to be making fun of religion. This is about innocent people getting killed by terrorists.

Re:7 bombs

[tigerd]

Hmm with all these cameras in london, it should be no problem at all to find the terrorist that did this. Lets see if the promised security is for real...

Re:7 bombs

[Sethus]

If this is true, we're pretty sure that these were just normal bombings and NOT suicide bombings? Doesn't the Al Qaeda usually use suicide bombers? I think it's too hasty to lay blame on the Al Qaeda even though they've taken responsibilty for the attacks!

Re:7 bombs

[Entropius]

If it was indeed radical Islamists who set these bombs, then it is indeed time to be making fun of religion -- it was loony religious nuts who did it!

Re:7 bombs

[sirdude]

Some dude in the House of Lords said earlier that there were 4 confirmed explosions.

There were also reports on the BBC that a proclamation had been made on a website by Al Qaeda that they were responsible. The reporter in question said that the phraseology was very similar to previous communiqués.. he didn't mention the URL though :/

Re:7 bombs

[tomjen]

best reason i could have for sleeping. But boss if i get out of bed people will die.

Happy Birthday though.

Re:7 bombs

[Baorc]

Thanks, but to put things in perspective up here in Canada, I am not worried one bit about our current terrorist situation. I mean honestly, who the hell is going to attack us?

Yes we may have more soft immigration laws, but goddamit last time I checked I had more freedom than the average American. I don't have to run around in fear that everytime I bump into someone they are holding a gun waiting to blast my head off or that the next guy beside me with an unusually large backpack may have explosives in them ready to blow the crap out of anyone.

The laws for immigration allow many different people from all over the world to be allowed to live in this country. Given this respect we give to others, we receive the same kind when we go "visit" their countries. Which I think speaks pretty much for itself. One word : Cuba. Best damn vacation ever.

So when I look over at the tragedy that happened in London, I feel bad for the UK. But as many argued, them being targetted might have something to do with the close ties they share with the US. And so I can only hope that they don't start passing ridiculous laws over in the UK as they have in the US scaring the shit out of everyone that lives there, which ultimately makes the terrorists win.

PS. sorry if this doesn't follow coherently, my train of thought is everywhere.

Re:7 bombs

[BakaHoushi]

I disagree. While this is a horrible tragedy (is there any other kind of tregedy?), humor must not be lost. Humor can keep one sane during dark times and keep spirits high, which is always needed.

The last thing we need people to do right now is go into a frenzy of "let's kill all the bastards for what these few did!" That only makes things worse. This is the time to make a joke, to calm down, and to think things through rationally, trying to avoid acting based solely on emotion.

At least, this is how I view it.

Also, I wish the British well.

Re:7 bombs

[petermgreen]

last i heared was the the initial reports were 7 but there were duplicate reports caused by people exiting the tube lines in opposite directions that were not initially correlated.

Re:7 bombs

[gronofer]

The last London bomber, David Copeland, was caught through CCTV images.

More details

[Chris_Jefferson]

I'm surprised it's taken Slashdot so long to get this. There have been 2 confirmed deaths, which is both terrible, but on the other hand somewhat better than many (including myself) expected from early reports.

Re:More details

[ShadoHawk]

And as I was listening to BBS World service in the car this morning on the way to work; there were witnesses that say there are quite a few more than that.

Re:More details

[bheading]

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.

Re:More details

[Anonymous Coward]

Only 2 because they can't confirm the number of people on the bus when it exploded, estimated survival rates are zero for the upper deck which, if full, would hold between 20 and 30 people. Expect those fatalities figures to climb :o(

Re:More details

[Craster]

It is more likely that the one on the bus was intended for a tube station, but exploded early. It is not believed that the bus was a specific target.

Re:More details

[pato101]

I'm surprised it's taken Slashdot so long to get this.

Perhaps some dumb discussions may have been avoided afterall.

Re:More details

[rxmd]

If it is AQ, I'm scared that all of the heavy anti-terrorist legislation appears to have had no effect

And I'm scared of the even heavier legislation that can be expected after this tragedy.

Re:More details

[baryon351]

Unfortutely the tsunamis in december started out with 200 confirmed dead, and the madrid bombings started with "about 5" deaths.

Re:More details

[Pandora's Vox]

i was home sick from school the day of the oklahoma city bombings, i remember the initial news was "there are no confirmed dead" and litterally sighing with relief. that relief didn't last, obviously.

Re:More details

[meringuoid]

And I'm scared of the even heavier legislation that can be expected after this tragedy.

Too right. I was actually beginning to think that I might not be getting my nice new biometric breathing licence^W^WID card, because of the ongoing backbench rebellion within the Party. I suppose that problem's over now...

Re:More details

[Alex P Keaton in da]

I really think that the Brits will come through this okay- They are a very tough people. I think that if you are so inclined it would be nice to say a prayer for our friends in Britain.
There are a lot of crazy violent people out there, but it will not strain British resolve. Lets hope that there aren't more attacks, and keep our friends in Europe in our thoughts.
Thanks to Sattelite Radio and the internet, I can listen to BBC (Used to have to get it on shortwave)

Re:More details

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you expect legislation to have much of an effect? Terrorists will generally operate outside the law. "Anti-terrorist" legislation's primary effect is always really to increase government power over ordinary law-abiding citizens.

Re:More details

[caluml]

"If you can't catch criminals, criminalise the people you can catch."

Re:More details

[nmg196]

> I'm scared that all of the heavy anti-terrorist legislation appears to have had no effect

Quite obviously, the anti-terrorist legislation was not put in place to prevent terrorism, but to make it easier to detain and prosecute terrorists.

Law never stops terrorists.

Re:More details

[DigitumDei]

The bus had its entire roof blown off, only the front half of the top floor seats seemed intact, so I'd be surprised if it wasn't more just in the bus.

Re:More details

[Alioth]

I'm not surprised it took Slashdot so long - Slashdot is a US site, and therefore the editors were all in bed when this was unfolding. Slashdot is always short of articles before about 2pm in the UK because it's run on US timezones.

Re:More details

[uncommonlygood]

I'm scared of the even heavier legislation that can be expected after this tragedy.

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

[nmg196]

Is that supposed to be funny?

Re:More details

[CmdrGravy]

Thank you, here is a comment from one of the BBC reporters in London

"However, the strange thing is that despite this terrible attack, there really is an air of people just trying to get on with things. As soon as the prime minister stopped talking, the pub erupted in conversation with all the usual talking points - contracts, deadlines and projects"

I just hope we can deal with this in a rational and effective manner and not a huge knee jerk over reaction, I think the press can do a lot to influence this and I really hope they do not do another "Diana" and get totally carried away.

Re:More details

[sheriff_p]

No effect?

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

[wanchai]

"If you can't catch criminals, criminalise the people you can catch."

"if you can't kill or change Blair & Bush, kill any of their citizens." WTF is that?

Re:More details

[aphexddb]

If it is AQ, I'm scared....

Terrorists 1, bheading: 0

Congratulations, its called terrorism for a reason. Its supposed to make you scared and forget that you care about laws.

Re:More details

[Mike1024]

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

As I post this, it's about 5 hours since the explosions, and the TV report I just watched said of 100 people taken to hospital, all but a handful (barely out of single digits) have been released - and even those kept in have a good prognosis.

A BBC 'Security Expert' suggested the bombs may have been much less powerful than expected.

I don't have any information beyond the reports, but if 50 people had been killed, I'd be genuinely suprised.

Michael

Re:More details

[JaF893]

It's the flawless logic of the politician - all that anti terrorist legislation didn't work, so lets have more anti terrorist legislation.

If they don't do anything then people will accuse them of doing nothing and if they introduce more laws then people will complain about a loss of rights.

Re:More details

[Eric S. Smith]

If it is AQ, I'm scared that all of the heavy anti-terrorist legislation appears to have had no effect ...

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

[bombadillo]

Keep in mind that busses are pretty heavily used at all times in London. A double decker bus is an icon of London. Thus it also makes a good target for terrorist media intentions

Re:More details

[Klivian]

There are some things making me believe and hope, this actually are going to get handled in a rational and effective manner. It may, if the media refrains from creating a mass hysteria kind of situation out of it. So I think most will depend on how the press handles it. Afterall terrorist bombs in London are not a new thing, sadly the citizens of London have lived with the treat for years. They have the experience of handling this kind of situations from the IRA bombs in the '70s and '80s.

Re:More details

[QuestorTapes]

> all that anti terrorist legislation didn't work, so lets have more anti terrorist legislation.

Leaving off the subject of more anti-terror legislation, why do you say the anti-terror legislation isn't working? Because it failed to prevent an attack? I don't believe anyone looking at the situation rationally would expect -anything- to make attacks impossible, just as no barriers can absolutely secure computer systems. Security is a process, not a state of being.

Reducing the number and severity of instances is certainly possible, but most of the effort has been to improve responses. The emergency crews responded quite well in London, from all I have seen. The real test is still to come; will the expanded police and investigative powers lead to identifying and capturing those responsible?

BTW, I am -not- in favor of most of the anti-terror legislation in place now. I'm just sympathetic to the police and emergency forces, and even to the legislators; they have an impossible task to do. No matter -what- they do, a huge number of armchair quarterbacks will bitch about how they would have done it.

All I can say in my favor is that I -know- I'm an armchair quarterback, and couldn't do a better job myself.

Re:More details

[dstewart]

"We still don't know the death toll yet, but by God, we are trying!"

I'm curious as to the excessive focus on the number of casulties in our media (and society), as opposed to financial losses or debilitating personal injuries incurred.

As I understand it, the focus of many terror groups is to disrupt social and financial networks and institutions. Loss of life is seen as just a means toward that end.

They count dollar signs, we count bodybags.

Perhaps is says something on the perceived value of human life?

Re:More details

[ir8monkey]

its been quite a bit longer then that, anyone remember the IRA?

Re:More details

[Kenrod]

Yes, this terrorist attack makes it clear that the terrorists are not a real threat. It would be terrible if British legislators were to act to prevent future "tragedy".

I think you meant "atrocity", not "tragedy". Why do you seek to minimize the crime? Cancer is a tragedy, the tsunami was a tragedy. This is cold-blooded murder of random people.

Re:More details

[Cat_Byte]

Somebody mod this up. Nobody seems to care about the attacks that are thwarted. Even the media just mentions "oh yeah they caught 6 people with enough explosives to blow up a city block today. Now here's Larry to show us how sunblock works. Larry?"

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. More people die in car crashes than what the terrorists do. If everyone just let them do their thing without forcing them into hiding and wiping out the ones that are found, they would grow so organized that they could create chaos worldwide on a scale way beyond this.

My prayers go out to the families affected by this attrocity. To the people acting like a war on terror isn't working, do you just want to let this group stay in London and keep doing this? You have to take them out. It is the only way. You can't sweet talk terrorists into being nice people. They're brainwashed enough to strap explosives on their bodies and blow up children.

Re:More details

[jonwil]

no amount of legislation or action can stop a guy with a backpack or briefcase full of explosives getting onto the tube if they really want to.

You could put metal detectors and x-ray machines (like they have at airports) on all entrances of every underground station and/or on every train but even that wont stop someone determined. Plus, the cost of doing it and delays to commuters that it would cause make it unfesable.

Not to mention the bombs on the busses too.

Re:More details

[eggsome]

I wish slashdot had an "add this post to my favorites list" feature.

Re:More details

[caluml]

Erm, employ a UK/European based editor? It's certainly a revolutionary thought.

Re:More details

[colinrichardday]

But are governments the best means of killing terrorists? Why don't you get off your state-worshipping butt and kill them yourself?

Re:More details

[da]

Western Culture is dying because of this stupidity

Really? Supporting arguments? References?

Obviously, 'something must be done', but passing more laws is not it. I absolutely agree with previous post that we can expect more draconian legislation which will deprive us of our liberty. Exactly how has all our (I'm British) recently legislation prevented today's incident? The 'something that should be done', should be done by the security services, who don't _need_ more laws to help them do their job. We have plenty of laws making it illegal to kill people, or to plot to kill people. I'm not criticing the security services (in this instance), they have an impossible job to do. What I am critical of is the way 'my' government (and yours, U.S.) is using the terrorist threat as an excuse to take away the liberty of it's citizens. It seems frighteningly easy to confuse these two issues in people's minds, but they are not the same thing.

Re:More details

[mtdenial]

That's exactly it, it's flawless logic.

This is a trend that can be seen in pretty much any level of western society, but is particularly evident in politics, both government and corporate. Every decision has to be made in a rational, logical manner and you must be able to support it. There is also an almost religious belief that an idea or decision made logically cannot be wrong. Thus, if the end result of your decision is not what you expect, it has nothing to do with your argument being wrong, it is more likely that you just weren't right enough of the people who implemented your decision screwed up.

As long as this continues, you will never see the anti-terror legislation get weaker, and not because your government wants ultimate control. More because the people involved in writing the legislation would be outright admitting that they did not properly manage the 'terrorist issue'.

Re:More details

[James A. D. Joyce]

"You have to take them out. It is the only way. You can't sweet talk terrorists into being nice people."

True, but the way we're currently going about it is hardly the most effective. And we mustn't let our government twist this tragedy around as the USA did for 9/11.

"They're brainwashed enough to strap explosives on their bodies and blow up children."

What about the adults? Do people suddenly stop mattering when they hit the age of 18?

Re:More details

[Log from Blammo]

There is one thing that they could do that no one would complain about: resign.

Re:More details

[ryanov]

It's honestly no wonder you don't have any mod points.

You are dehumanizing PEOPLE and saying that "you have to take them out." You don't seem to care at all what might be the rationale, or what could be done to prevent this OTHER than continuing to kill people. You could at LEAST look at alternatives before saying "it's the only way."

Re:More details

[da]

Even the media just mentions "oh yeah they caught 6 people with enough explosives to blow up a city block today

Funny how most of the reports about arresting "terror suspects" in the British media are never followed up with a report telling you that they've all been released without charge, this in a country were you don't even have to take terrorists to court to put them in prison. You do the math.

Yes we face a possible terrorist threat. Using that as an excuse to deprive citizens of their rights is not justified. There is no correlation between the two, and it is disigenious to suggest otherwise.

Re:More details

[Jarnis]

Well, current reported body count is 40 or 45, depending on who you listen to.

And I'm quite sure it'll grow more.

Surprised?

Re:More details

[diamondsw]

You had me until the gratuitous "children" part. Conservatives always invoke "the children" in any argument that otherwise makes no sense.

Yes, we need to find the people behind this, just as we would investigate and break up any other organized crime ring. That does not mean we suspend all civil liberties and privacy rights to do it, or send countries back to the stone age.

Being more focused on terrorism as a security priority is good. Making sure all of our various investigative departments and governments are working together and sharing information is good. Those are the post-9/11 activities that have made a difference in preventing terrorist attacks. Passing "feel-good" but useless legislation is bad. Including every pet neo-con wish into a blanket "War on Terrorism" is even worse. Giving up our rights and lives to combat a vague fear - that's what "terrorism" is all about. And *that* is what the "War on Terrorism" has gotten us.

Re:More details

[Ubergrendle]

The germans had a saying for the brits in WWI... "Lions led by lambs". The last thing you want to do is test the resolve of the British people. There's a reason why England hasn't been invaded in almost 1000 years, and its not just because its an island!

London carried on with a normal daily life throughout the Blitz, so they can certainly survive this. But I expect their response as a nation to be cold, calculated, and measured. Someone, somewhere, is going to wake up one night and the last thing they'll see is a black-camo clad SAS member standing over their bed.

Re:More details

[McTaggart]

If there really were only two deaths (or any other low number for that matter) then I really doubt the point of the attack was killing people. I fail to see how a group organised enough to pull a stunt like this would manage to miss their goal by so far.

Re:More details

[surprise_audit]

4 years?? More like 30 years, counting the "troubles" in Northern Ireland. I don't remember if the IRA ever managed to explode a bomb in London, but there were certainly *some* bombings on the mainland.

Re:More details

[irote]

Someone, somewhere, is going to wake up one night and the last thing they'll see is a black-camo clad SAS member standing over their bed

As a Londoner, I'd prefer to think they'll see a policeman, who'll arrest them, and they'll find themselves in a criminal court, where they'll be tried by a jury, who'll decide whether they're guilty or not. And if they are, they'll be imprisoned.

We're quite keen on the rule of law in most of Europe.

Re:More details

[Ubergrendle]

My revenge fantasy was more centered on finding the big fish up the food chain, probably in a foreign country who are funding and directing these cells.

I agree that formal arrest and prosecution is the correct way to do things, but unfortunately that will most likely be limited to the local cell members who planted the bombs.

Re:More details

[learn fast]

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.

Re:More details

[IngramJames]

You have to take them out. It is the only way. You can't sweet talk terrorists into being nice people.

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

[irote]

Well then we have these things called extradition treaties. And if they're higher up the food chain, then they'd certainly be criminally responsible, so eminently triable.

Of course, if the extradition request is refused, then some lawyers would argue that we had the right to resort to extra-legal measures. But in general, rather than kill people to put others in prison, it's better to wait for the government in question to change their mind. They will eventually - the Lockerbie bombers were eventually extradited, tried and convicted.

Re:More details

[jpietrzak]

You have to take them out. It is the only way. You can't sweet talk terrorists into being nice people. They're brainwashed enough to strap explosives on their bodies and blow up children.

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

Re:More details

[6031769]

Yes, they certainly did. See the BBC archive for the grisly details.

Re:More details

[fanblade]

If you are so inclined, also say a prayer for the ones that committed this atrocity. Those that support this sort of evil may need our prayers the most.

Re:More details

[CanadianBoy]

I heard an interview with a woman who was trapped on one of the trains the was bombed. She sounded so unflapped and one of the things she mentioned was that nobody panicked. I think that's why the fatalities are so low, because in most other places there would have been a stampede after an event like this.

Re:More details

[fanblade]

If you really are saying a prayer for the families affected by this atrocious act, consider saying a prayer for the people that support this evil. You may not be able to sweet talk terrorists into being nice, but they arguably need our prayers more than anyone. I know it's much easier to hate, but that's what separates us from them.

Re:More details

[daclink]

A my sibling said the IRA did blow things up in London. I think the reason that you don't recall the events is that the IRA tended to issue warnings before the blasts, hence reducing the number of casualties. There were no such warnings this morning (apparently).

DaClink

Re:More details

[CmdrGravy]

"...citizens of London have lived with the treat for years..."

That amused me !

It doesn't look like the death toll is going to be too high so the chances are good that it will be dealt with rationally.

We have had to live with threats and terrorism frmo the IRA for a long time so yes we are used to a bit of bombing every now and again, I think it's a good idea to take note of the way in which that threat was handled.

Re:More details

[brkello]

I know you are trying to say something nice. But seriously, what country doesn't make it through these things? It's human to be fearful at first and then move on once things return to normal. If this is all it took for a country to crumble, countries wouldn't exist.

Re:More details

[LKM]

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?

Wow, that's some weird logic! There has never been an islamist terrorist attack on London in this scale. Not before 9/11 and not after it. There's no indication that any of the counter measures had any kind of effect since there are not enough data points to have any kind of statistic. In fact, it's highly unlikely that there's anything you can do to prevent such attacks with a high probability anyway. And it's highly likely that the war on terrorism caused this attack - at least in part.

All we can say with certainty is that the response plans put in place should such an attack occur seemed to have worked pretty well. Evacuations, medical help and such seemed to work out as planned.

Re:More details

[Col. Bloodnok]

As a gun nerd and a former Londoner, the SAS option would be cooler! :)

These jihadist fuckwits are highly likely to be armed and dangerous - and unwilling to be arrested. I would trust the task of bringing them to justice to the SAS, more than I trust SO19 to deal with them.

Re:More details

[Mike1024]

Pretty much.

The BBC is currently saying 33 plus an unknown number of people on the bus.

It seems somewhat odd that some outlets prominently reported "two confirmed dead" when "an unknown number of dead" would seem to be clearer (although I acknowledge the former doesn't exclude the possibility of unconfirmed dead).

Re:More details

[jafac]

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.

Simple fact is - no, terrorist attacks have not been on the decline.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005946.php
They tripled in 2004 alone.

You can't sweet talk terrorists into being nice people.

I don't have a link, but in Saudi Arabia, they had a program where when a jihadi was captured, they were given the opportunity to debate with a muslim cleric, on the justification in Isalam for external jihad (Jihad waged as a physical war of violence against infidels, as opposed to the more accepted definition of an internal war within the believer to defeat a non-believing self). The conditions of the debate were; if the jihadi wins, he goes free. If the cleric wins, the jihadi goes to prison, and when released, must join in the effort to convince other jihadis that violence is wrong, and not an acceptible part of Islam. Each and every jihadi that went through this program (in 2002, when I read about it) was converted from radicalism. So yes, you CAN "sweet-talk" terrorists into being nice people, if you can accept the notion that not all muslims are radical. On the other hand, if you prefer to paint all muslims with the same broad brush, then perhaps you require some sweet-talking yourself.

Re:More details

[learn fast]

I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation.

The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

Re:More details

[SubtleNuance]

I really think that the Brits will come through this okay- They are a very tough people. I think that if you are so inclined it would be nice to say a prayer for our friends in Britain.

--

yeah, you know, piss up a tree to make yourself feel better instead of having a real measurable effect on actually improving the world.

Re:More details

[ultranova]

Yes, this terrorist attack makes it clear that the terrorists are not a real threat. It would be terrible if British legislators were to act to prevent future "tragedy".

Yes, it would be terrible if legislators continued to act in ways that obviously don't prevent terrorist attacks like this one. That, after all, is the aim of terrorist action - to make their target react without thinking, thereby causing itself much more damage than terrorists possibly could and crediting claims about "evilness" of the target.

I think you meant "atrocity", not "tragedy". Why do you seek to minimize the crime? Cancer is a tragedy, the tsunami was a tragedy. This is cold-blooded murder of random people.

The word "tragedy" has come to mean any event which is associated with plentifull human suffering and death. Cold-blooded murder of random people is certainly tragedy, at least for the families of those people.

Re:More details

[Citizen of Earth]

"If you can't catch criminals, criminalise the people you can catch."

I think a lot of people have the attitude of "If you can't catch all criminals, then stop trying to catch any."

Re:More details

[Citizen of Earth]

Well then we have these things called extradition treaties. And if they're higher up the food chain, then they'd certainly be criminally responsible, so eminently triable.

And countries like Iran and Pakistan will be falling all over themselves to hand these people over, just like the Taliban were.

The Law(TM) only works when dealing with non-bullshit countries.

Re:More details

[JofCoRe]

If everyone just let them do their thing without forcing them into hiding and wiping out the ones that are found, they would grow so organized that they could create chaos worldwide on a scale way beyond this.

Or, if everyone would just let them do their thing and have their own cival wars and internal problems, maybe they wouldn't be so pissed off at other countries meddling in their affairs all the time and wouldn't want to blow up said other countries.

If the USA and its allies would stop being the world's self-appointed police force, that might help.

"America! Fuck Yeah! Comin' again to save the motherfuckin' day!" Team America, World Police indeed... :)

Re:More details

[ryanov]

You don't know what you are talking about, and just wish to react to the symptoms of the problem, not to solve it.

Re:More details

[ryanov]

Yeah? How do you know?

Re:More details

[Knuckles]

It may also be that they've gotten used to it. After all they are at war, and as terrible as this attack is, it's after all "only" 50 people or so, and in Iraq this happens on a regular basis

As far as I'm concerned, I wonder if the term "terrorist act" is even correct. They are at war, they have their troops in Iraq, they have killed, aided in killing, or created situations that assisted in killing, ca. 23,000 people. Now the war has come to their own soil.
Tragedy? Sure. Atrocity? Hell, yeah. Terrorism? I don't think so

Re:More details

[DF5JT]

Can someone please mod this up? (Sheesh, my one mod point left went into an SCO-discussion.)

Re:More details

[fatboy]

Tragedy? Sure. Atrocity? Hell, yeah. Terrorism? I don't think so

If the purpose was not to terrorize, what was the target? Does the military use those tunnels, trains or buses on a regular basis?

Re:More details

[Presidential]

...if it's not AQ I'm even more scared.

If you're scared at all, they just fscking won.

Re:More details

[brpr]

As a gun nerd and a former Londoner, the SAS option would be cooler! :)

Killing suspected criminals without trial isn't cool. In fact killing people in general isn't cool. If you think it is, get help.

These jihadist fuckwits are highly likely to be armed and dangerous

Are they? I'd say most of those living in Europe at least are unlikely to be armed -- if you're an undercover terrorist, the last thing you want to do is criminalise yourself by keeping a gun.

I would trust the task of bringing them to justice to the SAS, more than I trust SO19 to deal with them.

You seem to be confusing "justice" with "slaughter" here.

Re:More details

[brpr]

The Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden because the US refused to provide any evidence that he was guilty. Obviously I'm no fan of the Taliban, but in this case I have to say "fair enough". Remember that this was shortly after the event, and there really wasn't any publicly available evidence of bin Laden's guilt at the time.

PS: I expect Pakistan would be falling over themselves to hand over suspected terrorists, since they're trying hard to paint themselves as US allies at the moment.

Re:More details

[CmdrGravy]

If this turns out to have been carried out by elements of the Iraqi military then yes you may have a point otherwise it's terrorism.

Although the war in Iraq has done very little to prevent this sort of terrorism ( and has in fact probably made it more likely ) it's still not a justification for it, in fact it's terrorism like this which is adding to that bodycount of yours in Iraq. In this case it's in the interests of Iraqis just as much as it's in the interests of Londoners that something practical and effective is done to combat this sort of terrorism.

This does not mean invading more Middle Eastern countries and it does not mean blaming entire communities it means cutting whatever popular support the terrorists enjoy, isolating them, tracking them down and bringing them to justice.

Re:More details

[Alamar3]

If they don't do anything then people will accuse them of doing nothing and if they introduce more laws then people will complain about a loss of rights.

Which rather suggests the appropriate course of action lies somewhere between those two extremes...

Re:More details

[Feniscowles]

The IRA's warnings were usually deliberately misleading and designed to direct evacuations from the first bomb towards a second bomb, thus increasing casualties. Their policy of placing bombs in pubs, trains, town centres, etc, demonstrates that their intention was to maximise casualties, not minimise them.

Re:More details

[Danny Rathjens]

You had me until the gratuitous "children" part. Conservatives always invoke "the children" in any argument that otherwise makes no sense.

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
* From Mein Kampf, (1925); the Ralph Manheim translation published by Houghton-Mifflin, 1943. pg 403.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hitler

Re:More details

[WAG24601G]

In short, "yes."

Although perhaps 'expectation' is too strong of a word and 'unwarranted hope' would be more accurate. Being an ocean away from London, I guess I'm not too worried about either immediately, but there is no doubt in my mind that the U.S. will be just as ready to up the ante again with more restrictive legislation.

Re:More details

[Col. Bloodnok]

Killing suspected criminals without trial isn't cool. In fact killing people in general isn't cool. If you think it is, get help.

Are they? I'd say most of those living in Europe at least are unlikely to be armed -- if you're an undercover terrorist, the last thing you want to do is criminalise yourself by keeping a gun.

A) There's no way of proving that they're *not* armed.
B) At what point did I say I wanted them shot dead?

Re:More details

[brpr]

There's no way of proving that they're *not* armed.

There's no way of proving that you're not an idiot. There's no way of proving Santa Claus doesn't exist. So what? Is it likely that this kind of terrorist suspect would be armed? Not very. Certainly not likely enough to justify a summary execution.

At what point did I say I wanted them shot dead?

You said that you thought the SAS option was "cooler", where the SAS option involved the person in question being shot dead on sight (while sleeping, no less). So you more or less said that you wanted them shot dead, or at least that you weren't particularly averse to the idea.

Re:More details

[bheading]

"Quite obviously, the anti-terrorist legislation was not put in place to prevent terrorism"

What complete rubbish. One of the principle articles of legislation in the UK was the Prevention of Terrorism Act which was subsequently renamed to the Terrorism Act; nonetheless it's stated purpose was preventing terrorism rather than merely catching those responsible.

The USA-PATRIOT act, also in it's name, is about prevention ("intercept and obstruct") of terrorism, rather than merely prosecution after the fact.

George Bush and Tony Blair are constantly telling us about how their measures are designed to protect people and homeland, so it could not be further from the truth to claim that they had no such stated interest.

Re:More details

[bheading]

I think it's a pretty natural human reaction to get scared about an act of terrorism and it's consequences.

In this case, I was mainly talking about what our delightful politicians will decide to do in response to this particular act. Almost certainly they will push through their ridiculous ID card legislation, but I can't bear to think of what other draconian measures they have in mind for our delight.

Re:More details

[johansalk]

I think Al-Qaeda are tactical bombers. I don't think they would bomb unless they had a specific purpose where the ends justified the means. That's why they bombed in Madrid before the elections but not at any other time - though they could've easily done so. That's why they have not bombed Germany or France though those were equally "infidel" nations. That's why they have not bombed Britain before the elections or at any other time. Now why did they - if it's them - bomb now? is it the G8 summit that's taking place right now in the UK? Is it because Bush right here in the UK?

Re:More details

[DigiShaman]

In war, you are either the sheep, or wolf. What side are you on?

Note: There is no right or wrong to the answer. It only points out your personal ideology. But for the record, the sheep never win.

Re:More details

[Col. Bloodnok]

There's no way of proving that you're not an idiot.

Fucking twat.

Re:More details

[jpietrzak]

for the record, the sheep never win.

Do the wolves? Around 1918, the Allies decisively won World War I, beating the Germans after a long war of attrition. We immediately imposed severe war reparations, bankrupting what was left of Germany and making the lives of the populace miserable for decades afterwards. We essentially created an entire generation that was happy to go back to war against us!

The outcome of WWII was quite a bit different; we won the war, but we acted far less like wolves in the aftermath. The former Axis powers were encouraged to choose a new path, even aided in that course (e.g., the famous Marshall plan). The result: the former Axis nations have been far less prone to internal & external strife than they've been in hundreds of years.

So don't knock the sheep. If you kill them all, you'll end up with a planet full of nothing but wolves, and that's just not much fun.

--John

Re:More details

[surprise_audit]

OK, that was in '93 - I was in the process of moving to the US from Bristol and that took up a lot of my time.

Re:More details

[GaryPatterson]

In WWII, the Battle of Britain is widely regarded as a turning point. Not the end, but a critical point, when German attacks were rebuffed and their war machine failed to cow the British.

That was largely due to the British air force (RAF).

A number of the ace pilots from the time had spent time in India, strafing the villages that were giving problems for the British Raj. That gave them valuable practice and improved their skills greatly.

We see the RAF as the 'good guys', but how do we reconcile the two? Is it as simple as black and white?

A better example: Hitler started the Battle of Britain by bombing the UK industries and war machine as a prelude to invasion. Churchill knew that without these two, they would lose in short order, so he sent the British bombers over the cities of the Germans, bombing the civilian targets. Some cities, such as Dresden, were reduced to ash.

Hitler was so enraged that he ordered the Luftwaffe to bomb London, to reduce it to rubble. The breathing space that created allowed the British war machine to rise to the challenge, and win the Battle of Britain.

Terrible choices, but they proved right.

So - who's the wolf, and who's the sheep here? Your model is far too simplistic, and seems to be one of those "with us or against us" things, when in fact most people are neither, or both.

Re:More details

[pete-classic]

Exactly right. We should stop.

I propose that we should:

• Demand our governments do nothing when there is nothing constructive they can do.
• Be outraged when our governments overstep their limits.
• Reward politicians who follow these demands by voting for them.
• Punish politicians who fail to meet these demands by not voting for them.
• Follow through on not voting for politicians who fail to meet these demands, even, especially when they give us lots of goodies.

Who's with me?

-Peter

Re:More details

[njchick]

Reminds me this joke:

http://www.prisoners.com/febiciala.html

Re:More details

[DigiShaman]

Thanks for the clarification. I was unaware that the British explicitly targeted civilians. Generally in warfare, you only go after the factories and military bases.

Basically, wolves are those that stand up for their pack (country). They can either be the offender or defender, but never stand down for what is right. Sheep on the other hand, are total pacifists. They believe that if you don't get yourself involved in any way that your enemy will leave you alone due to your own stance as a non-threat. If you wish to stand down and be conquered, so be it. However, remember that you will always be playing by their rules. Personally, I will not yield to Bin Laden and warship to Allah. I piss on his fucking Koran.

Remember, you can never have peace without victory. It truly is sad, but is a fact that war transverses throughout human history.

Re:More details

[irote]

except you cut the second sentence: countries eventually change their mind. Witness Ghadaffi handing over the Lockerbie suspects - it took 12 years, but he came round. Would it have been worth going to war with Libya over that?

Re:More details

[Christian Engstrom]

Terrorist organisations which have been defeated as a result of governments trying to "take them out"

Rote Arme-Fraktion (the Baader-Meinhof crowd in Germany in the 70s) would probably be another example.

But I agree with you, the list of examples where heavy-handed tactics from the authorities have failed to produce the promised results, or indeed been contra-productive, is much much longer.

And of course they didn't stop Baader-Meinhof by carpet bombing the major German cities.

I wish more people would read Henry Kissinger's fantastic book "Diplomacy" before they start suggesting drastic anti-terrorist measures. He, if anybody, knows first hand the limitations of that kind of strategy, and he explains them in a lucid and intellectually dispassionate way that it is a joy to read.

And I haven't heard anybody call Dr. Kissinger a soft liberal leftie yet. ;-)

Re:More details

[Hazelnut]

There's no way of proving that you're not an idiot.
Fucking twat.

Well you certainly proved him wrong on that point... hahaha! ;-)

Re:More details

[Citizen of Earth]

except you cut the second sentence: countries eventually change their mind. Witness Ghadaffi handing over the Lockerbie suspects - it took 12 years, but he came round. Would it have been worth going to war with Libya over that?

You do realize that it was the invasion of Iraq that convinced Momar that he was on the wrong path, right? Momar didn't want to end up like Saddam and Slovidan. So, Lybia's turn-around was a side-benefit of the US invading Iraq.

Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[MoonFog]

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!

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[NicolaiBSD]

Part of the modus operandi of the so-called "al-qaeda network" was never to claim any attack.
So the fact that someone claims the attack in the name of al-qaeda proves -if anything- that this is not an al-qaeda attack

My personal belief is that the "al-qaeda network" is no more than a figment of western imagination, created to give terrorism a face that really isn't there. The network of the 9-11 bombers has been destroyed, most of Bin Laden's chums have been killed or captured.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Oxygen99]

Y'know, I do wonder whether they did. The 'Secret Organisation of Al Qaeda in Europe'? That doesn't ring true. Besides, at the moment there are relatively few casualties in relation to the size of the attack, it was timed after the peak of the rush hour, the London transport network is effectively crippled and all in the week that masses of anarchist organisations happen to be in the country? Hmmm. Let's not jump to conclusions people.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[MoonFog]

How many sources do you want?

German
Assosiated Press

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[strider44]

If this is true, then they must be seriously fucked up. Don't get me wrong, anyone who would willingly kill children are immediately labled as fucked up in my mind, but they aren't just fucked up, they're idiots as well. People were starting to empathise with them, starting to move forward from Sept 11 and requesting removing troops from the middle east. Now they go around killing people all over again.

I say kill the stupid fuckers.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[MoonFog]

I know it doesn't mean much, but the article from Der Spiegel that was linked to in another post here show a screenshot from an Arabic website where these claims were posted. A lot of the news agencies are talking about this, but it could be some people just wanting attention and that it was carried out by a whole different group.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[hotspotbloc]

Y'know, I do wonder whether they did. The 'Secret Organisation of Al Qaeda in Europe'? That doesn't ring true.

I don't know if an Al Qaedaish group did this or not but they are in Europe. Check PBS' Frontline episode "Al Qaeda's New Front". They're streaming the entire episode.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[meringuoid]

Bear in mind that after any major incident a lot of different groups are going to claim the credit, in order to increase their own profile - kind of a malign game of 'I'm Spartacus!' Some group in Jordan claimed responsibility for the New York attacks in 2001 - then quickly retracted their claim, presumably when some higher-up in the group found out about it and realised what it had done to his life expectancy ;-)

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

[jasen666]

We don't see you posting links to *your* more credible sources, now do we?

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[NeedleSurfer]

This sounds more like a cartoon enemy than a real organisation, I don't think Al Quaeda has a marketing department who come up with all those names. I believe this is just another Twin Towers, a setup so lame people agree on getting rid of their freedom in the name of security, a setup to justify Blair's war and its continuation...

Why would a group exposing himself would call itself The secret organisation? If not to feed the mind of the blockbuster population with movie scenario-like thoughts...

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[barryj21]

"One final puzzle: why didn't they do this yesterday? Bombing the Tube yesterday morning would surely have scuppered the Olympic bid..."

This would assume the intent was to disrupt the olympic bid. My guess is whoever did this doesn't care about the bid, otherwise why not go for Paris too?

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure those bombs that went off in London today are just as much a figmant of "Westeren Imagination" as Al-Qaeda.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[fistfullast33l]

I heard about it and immediately thought it might be the IRA - the fact that it was London and Scotland in the news recently would have made sense.

I also find it strange that most of the people they've interviewed on CNN, ABC, and NBC here in the states have said that they've never heard of this orginaztion before. It is possible that this is not tied to AQ or as the grandparent suggests there never was an AQ.

As for why they did this today and not yesterday, I'm pretty sure that they wanted the contrast that they are hearing on the news now. Everyone mentions in one breath the attack and the Olympics/G8. Not to mention that even if they did attack yesterday there was no guarantee that A) London would have won the bid (remember this was during morning rush hour - the same time as the Olympic announcement) and B) they wanted to stop the bid. These guys don't expect to be successful, they expect to scare the bejeezus out of everybody.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[kevinbr]

How often did the IRA fail to issue a warning? It was the policy of the IRA to always issue a coded warning.

This would benefit the IRA how?

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[stinerman]

People were starting to empathise with them, starting to move forward from Sept 11 and requesting removing troops from the middle east. Now they go around killing people all over again.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the modus operandi of the so-called "al-qaeda network" was never to claim any attack.
So the fact that someone claims the attack in the name of al-qaeda proves -if anything- that this is not an al-qaeda attack

Wikipedia begs to differ:

Besides the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., al-Qaeda has also taken responsibility for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole, as well as many attacks on people in and of other nations around the world.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[spoonyfork]

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

[Bobke]

My personal belief is that the "al-qaeda network" is no more than a figment of western imagination, created to give terrorism a face that really isn't there.

I agree with this statement, but my belief goes a little further. This "terror attack" is a major part in the global attack on freedom/privacy, led by the United States of Corporations. Bit by bit we are taken from it.
I hope people will listen very closely when they hear them announce the counter measurements that will result from these attacks.

Problem -> Reaction -> Solution

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Devar]

My personal belief is that the "al-qaeda network" is no more than a figment of western imagination, created to give terrorism a face that really isn't there. The network of the 9-11 bombers has been destroyed, most of Bin Laden's chums have been killed or captured.

It is not just your personal belief, this is fact.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[DiscoDave_25]

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. Currently PIRA has disarmed and it is only RIRA (Real IRA) that are active however it is unlikely that they would have the capabilities to produce such a massive and well coordinated attack.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[dr_dank]

How do these organizations claim responsiblity? Is there a form you have to fill out?

I never understood this concept. In a terrorist organizations stable of bombbuilders, gurillas, and the like, they have room for a PR flack?

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[TheCaptain]

Yep. And that "moon landing" was fake. Art Bell confirmed it. We Western folks sure do have active imaginations, don't we?

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[MoonFog]

Well, in this case they have published it on an arabic web site. They state they carried out the attacks and that Denmark and Italy have to pull their troops out of Iraq.

So, no form, they just go out on a medium (such as the internet) and say "We did it".

You can off course question the reliability on the web page in question.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Badfysh]

One final puzzle: why didn't they do this yesterday? Bombing the Tube yesterday morning would surely have scuppered the Olympic bid...

Because they're cowardly bastards and they knew security would be pretty high. There was a fair amount of police around yesterday.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Craster]

In a terrorist organizations stable of bombbuilders, gurillas, and the like, they have room for a PR flack?

Absolutely. That's the point of terrorism. The point of this attack is not to kill a couple of hundred people. The point is to strike terror into the hearts of a couple of million people. Claiming responsibility and making threats are a key part of that.

Also, PR = recruitment = more bombbuilders.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Aardpig]

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

What about Omagh or Enniskillen?

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[LK01]

I posted a sceptical message about the al-Qaeda terrorist organization, as portrayed in the media, once before in this discussion, but here goes again, because... People really should check out this article: Does al-Qaeda exist?

"There is a 'rooted public perception of what al-Qaeda is', says Dolnik, who is currently carrying out research on the Terrorism and Political Violence Programme at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore; but, he says, such perceptions are far from accurate. Dolnik argues that where many imagine that al-Qaeda is 'a super organisation of thousands of super-trained and super-secret members who can be activated any minute', in fact it is better understood as something like a 'global ideology that has not only attracted many smaller regional groups, but has also facilitated the boom of new organisations that embrace this sort of radical and violent thinking'. Dolnik and others believe that, in many ways, the thing we refer to as 'al-Qaeda' is largely a creation of Western officials."

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[whopis]

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

[pglee]

Thank you for your reply re IRA atrocities - nice to know some people can get their facts straight.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[efatapo]

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.

I truly believe that you are short sighted. They would have no reason to exist? How about taking power in Iraq over a barely established government. Have you read anything about the Iraq security force? While there is on going training, they are certainly not up to the task of defending themselves alone yet.

The true terrorists would have no freedom fighter status in which to cloak themselves, and the nationalist insurgents would likely turn against the terrorists.

Except they would attack the democratic government that has been placed, using the same logic and only slightly altered rhetoric.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[TopShelf]

One comment I heard on NPR this morning mentioned that quite often, a splinter group with a new name is formed for specific operations, so it's not out of the question to have a new name pop up like this. The coordinated timing of the attacks certainly seems to be an Al Qaeda hallmark. The anarchists who have protested WTO and G8 meetings have typically attacked property, not people.

And regarding casualties, the rescue workers have focused on the injured first, and haven't pulled the dead out of the tunnel yet. Those numbers will surely climb in the hours ahead.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[rbarreira]

Nice post, but are you sure it isn't more like this?

1) Wait for retaliation
2) Use collateral damage as a rallying point to increase membership
3) Attack civilians
4) GOTO 1

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[perly-king-69]

>>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. Umm, that's because the dead are having a real tough time trying to walk along the rail lines and up to street level.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[stinerman]

It depends on who you think cast the first stone. Based on bin Laden's fatwa, I'd say that his greviances are genuine and meritable, but the action taken was not in proportion to the damage done.

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.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[eoinmadden]

Mod parent up!

This attack has the hallmarks of an Al Qeada attack, not an IRA one. For one thing, the IRA usually issues a warning along with a known codeword.

This would benefit the IRA how?
Exactly. At the current time this would be of no benefit to the IRA. The IRA are on ceasefire and are contemplating a call by Gerry Adams to move their agenda forward solely by peaceful political means.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Andy_R]

It's not like the IRA ever tried to blow up the tallest office building in the country is it?

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[FrostedWheat]

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

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Ashen]

*rolls eyes*

Let me guess, an Oxford alumni?

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[linuxrunner]

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

That logic is so flawed it's almost sad.

We were attacked first. WTC Bombings... USS Cole... Misc Embassy Bombings, and then the WTC collapse. Hey, and guess what. We were not over there at all!!!

The fact is, their object is to destroy all infidels... since we're not muslim, or restrict women, or who the fuck knows what else... then we are on their shit list. Period.

Why we shouldn't leave? It's like bribery. If I have dirt on you, and I ask for money, and you keep paying up, then I'll just keep asking for more and more.

If we roll over and do as they say because of a bomb, then they'll see that as a working avenue. So anytime they want something, they blow up and kill a lot of people, demand, and receive. Then do it again when something else is needed...

There's no reasoning with people willing to blow themselves up....

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

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

If you believe that, then you are naive. The insurgents that operate in Al Anbar, Fallujah, Baghdad et all are just as much of a Sunni nationalist army as they are a resistanece against the Americans. Right now, they do not directly fight Al Sadr and others, simply because Al Sadr was a thorn in the Americans side, but if the Americans left, then the exact same forces would now start fighting with the Kurds over Kirkuk, and the Shiites over Baghdad and surrounding areas.

The rank and file of the insurgency is not "America haters" or Al-Qaeda or whatever, they are run of the mill Sunnis whose status has declined after Saddam. Even if they do not hate Shiites per se, they do hate the fact that they lost prestige and their cushy jobs that they had under Saddam. When people lose their jobs and go hungry, people do crazy things (think Germany in the 20s and 30s), and often will fight to get back their way of life.

That way of life will not magically return if the Americans leave. Its just if that happens, they will have to deal with well organized Kurdish and Shiite militias, hell bent on making sure that they won't lose what little they have gained after Saddam's removal.

Frankly, what this all makes me think is that the whole idea of keeping Iraq one cohesive nation is just plain dumb.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Dread_ed]

The idea is not to influence the Olympics to go somewhere else, it is to remove the financial gain and prestige that an Olympics will bring to that country.

In other words, what is worse, an Olympics held in one of 3 places that you despise or an Olympics that no one attends? How many people will feel safe going to London to see the Olympics and having to ride the same public transportation system that was bombed previously?

It never fails, no matter what the conflict, if you follow the money you will find the reason.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[meadowsp]

Weren't there at all? Wasn't one of OBL's main gripes that the US had military bases in Saudia Arabia?

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[cfulmer]

Well, if that's true, how did it start?

One of the drivers is that Arab civilization used to be the pinnacle of education and knowledge, the center of the entire world -- heck, they're called the 'arabic' numbers. But, the center of gravity has shifted west and they've been left out of it. So, there's some sense that their rightful place in the world has been taken from them. This frustration will be magnified whenever the West does something that they disagree with. That probably includes the "retaliation" you're talking about, but probably also a lot more (maybe even including 'existing').

(Note: not claiming that all Arabs are terrorists or vice-versa.)

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[ch-chuck]

Arab terrorists would just find another 'reason' for blowing themselves up and taking civilians, like the existance of the state of Israel, etc. Their civilization if horribly antiquated and unable to provide for their people, just look at all the unamployed muslims wandering around with nothing productive to do except turn religious fanatic and go bezerk out of frustration in light of the relative material success of the west. The worst situation arises when you combine that fanatacism with oil money and suddenly they have means to act on their hatred.

Simple, naive solutions like suggestion "just pulling out" would usher in the age of universal peace and happiness is the same old appeasement that never works with unreasonable fanatics.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[revscat]

It never fails, no matter what the conflict, if you follow the money you will find the reason.

A reason, anyway. People are rarely so simple that their actions are governed by any single underlying motive. In the current case, financial attacks are a means to achieving a religious goal. Al Qaeda are zealots first and foremost; the weapons they use are terror that disrupts the financial stability of the target.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[learn fast]

It does seem a bit suspicious that the group is one that no one has ever heard of before, but I would point out that timed multiple simultaneous attacks is Al Qaeda's signature move.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[linuxrunner]

[quote]
We were attacked first? Really? So there were no events prior to the WTC bombings that might've been a cause to motivate them? And really, "We were not over there at all"? Don't you mean our military wasn't occupying their country, because I'm sure that we had some presence or another diplomatically, or at least economically, overseas at the time.
[/quote]

Ok.. so tell us what the events that built us up to the first WTC bombings were? So OBL was in Afghanastan... what? Did we economically affect them by selling a shirt in their country? Maybe we were diplomatically trying to work something out with someone he didn't want us to? Should we be walking on more egg shells?

That's assinine...

What did we do to provoke it? Fill us in....

You talk about soviets and germans... Grab a history book and look up how many soviets died in that war... Do it now. Is that what you want to see? If you're too lazy the count is 6,115,000 people. Sure there are other ways to fight.. but at what cost?

That's food for thought.. and you better chew well.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Snaller]

One final puzzle: why didn't they do this yesterday? Bombing the Tube yesterday morning would surely have scuppered the Olympic bid...


There is your answer right there - its the french olympic committee!

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[squiggleslash]

Thinking about it, yes, that involved more people.

Note, I'm talking about the scale involved in terms of the potential loss of lives, not the political impact. In some ways, killing political figures is less evil (though still evil) than killing ordinary, innocent, people whose only involvement in an affair may have been, at most, to pay taxes, and vote.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Cally]

Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. The "Real IRA" were responsible for the worst single atrocity in the entire history of the recent troubles, the 29 civilians who were blown to bits when they were evacuated into the street where the car bomb was.

That said, I think the odds are in favour of "Al-Qaeda" affiliated groups. As others have pointed out there is no monolithic AQ organisation; any random wannabe-martyr can blow people up and claim it for A.Q.

I was supposed to be coming into London tonight & staying with friends who live very close to King's Cross station (visible in the footage currently playing on Sky, in fact.) Now I don't want to get in the way o cause any more traffic problems. But on the other hand, I'm loathe to let these bastards affect my life.

Finally - if it IS AQ, and/or linked to Iraq (a reasonable assumption) - I think it's clear that whilst the terrorists are responsible for killing & maiming people, Blair, Straw, Hoon and the rest of that pack of lickspittles that voted for the war have, in the hackneyed phrase, blood on their hands. They were the ones who gave the bombers the incentive to blow up _us_ in particular.

IMHO of course.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Twanfox]

You know what? I'm not a historian, I know some history. I'm not a politician, though I know the basics of politics. However, I'm not so stupid as to think that we were total innocents with the terrorists overseas. Had I more time in my life to devote to learning about problems overseas, I'd probably be able to tell you.

I bring up the WWII example as an example of an alternative to what you implied by the statement "There's no reasoning with someone willing to blow themselves up." The formost image that brings to my mind is killing each and every person that fits that criteria that is dead set on hurting us. Genocide. That is an awful major thing to set off to do, and one I'd rather avoid.

You are correct in noting that there are still costs, even for alternative methods of fighting. You imply that you're unwilling to even consider withdraw as a valid tactic, that you want to see is stay in there, deep in the action, and refuse to give them any satisfaction at all. In fact, you all but say that the only option open to us is to kill them off. Are you willing to look at alternatives, or is this the only way you think?

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[plumby]

Back in the day, the IRA used to use recognised codewords when giving warnings. Never seen any mention of anything similar with Al-Qaeda.

Sometimes (particularly in places like Israel/Palestine and Iraq), there's several organisation that initally claim to have been the ones behind an attack, and as far as I can tell, it's often verified through details that appear in the real claim that have not actually been reported.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[stinerman]

bin Laden's fatwa, to wit:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

It sounds like he's pissed that the US has a military presence in Saudi Arabia. I also suggest you read the entire fatwa. Nowhere does he suggest converting people to Islam or killing non-muslims, nor does he speak of western attitudes toward women.

Why we shouldn't leave? It's like bribery.

Speaking of logical fallacies, you've successfully begged the question. Read again. "We need to stay there because we are there."

If we roll over and do as they say because of a bomb, then they'll see that as a working avenue

That type of thinking also precludes rational judgement of demands. If civil rights leaders in the 60s would have used these tactics, their arguments would have still been valid. The way someone goes about change does not invalidiate their ideas. That is, just because bin Laden believes that the US should get out of Saudi Arabia, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Rayonic]

The true terrorists would have no freedom fighter status in which to cloak themselves, and the nationalist insurgents would likely turn against the terrorists.

That's already happening.

If you didn't know about that, then you might want to consider broadening your news sources.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[stlhawkeye]

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.

They wouldn't collapse, they'd form a government and we'd be right back where we were in 1980. The nationalist insurgents ARE terrorists.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[mr100percent]

What provoked it?
The US was giving Billions in weapons and money to Israel, with Bush calling Sharon "a man of peace" while refusing to work with the Palestinian government, which was at the time dealing with malnutrition in its population. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tried to move the 9/11 attack to earlier so that people would see how it was in response to that. Bin Laden has stated numerous times that America was the enemy because it stationed military and troops in bases in Saudi Arabia that are close to the holy city of Mecca. He also griped that the US was propping up the Saudi monarchy which was repressing dissent.

The US is disliked by much of the world for things like that. I believe an opinion poll in the Middle East found that people felt Bin Laden was fighting America for the right reasons (to end what I said above), but doing it in an entirely wrong way (by resorting to terrorism).

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Placido]

Jesus dude! Never use GOTO in your code man! Have we taught you nothing?!

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Phrack]

---
I'm reminded of the Soviets vs. Germany in WWII. They didn't really fight them on a head on fight to start with, they let the Germans come across the border. Only, rather than give them good land, they burned it, made it useless in the short term. And yet, with all the retreats by the Soviets, the Germans lost. How could this be? Is it possibly that there was another way to fight than in a direct head-on struggle?
---

That's because the Soviets were not prepared and got their ass kicked. Hard. It took some time for commanders to convince Stalin that the attack was even real, and by that time it was too late. So, they traded land for time, practicing the scorched earth policy to deny use, and let winter set in. That may not have necessarily been their preferred plan, but it was the best option left. Millions died simply to buy time.

There's lots of interesting studies on it. Go find one.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[squiggleslash]

No, it's probably not like the IRA tried to blow up the tallest office building in the country. They blew up a truck bomb outside it.

I mean it's possible that the old joke about the intelligence of Irish terrorists is true ("one tried to blow up my car once, but he burnt his lips on the exhaust pipe") has some truth to it, but still... I question anyone would seriously think a truck bomb parked next to a tall building of any substance would actually do more than shatter windows and cause casualties on the ground.

The IRA's attack then was an attempt to terrorise people. Here was Margaret Thatcher's pride and joy, and it wasn't safe to walk around it.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[william_w_bush]

ahem... no, the rebellion would just quickly switch from "satan america & israel vs islam" to "shia vs sunni". Actually, it's already starting, see pakistan and iraq.

the entire structure of society is inherently unstable right now, too many young, disenfranchised, and uneducated men, and not enough things to keep the busy/dying. it's a horrible thing to say, but when families are based on the concept of a patriarch with up to 4 wives, the poorer, young males become so frustrated and angry, and that anger needs a target to be manipulated against.

mod me down as much as you like, because i almost see this as a flame, but i've seen it first hand, and it really tears me up to watch.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Thwomp]

"One final puzzle: why didn't they do this yesterday? Bombing the Tube yesterday morning would surely have scuppered the Olympic bid.."

To coincide with the start of the G8 summit when all eyes would be focused on the U.K.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[jafac]

The multiple-coordinated bomb attacks certainly is one of the hallmakrs of Al Qaeda (see Madrid, and African embassy attacks in the 1990's, and even 9/11 had that characteristic).

But, as you said, yesterday would have been a more effective economic attack on London. (frankly, I was expecting the next AQ attack to be on 6/11. You know; 9/11 US - 3/11 Spain. . . etc.).

The other thing is - I would have expected AQ to do the old "airplane into big-ben" thing. . .

I do agree that this is not a group like IRA or ETA - both of those groups tended to focus more on economic attacks, and they tried hard to avoid los of life.

My Guess?
Poseurs. Wannabe jihadists who don't have anything to do with AQ, but wish they did. London, of all european countries, has a LOT of muslim churches full of radicals. Back in the 90's, when I worked for a company with an office in Bristol, I had a couple of muslim co-workers, and these kids were a tad on the nutty side. Firm believers in "collapse of the great US Empire" and that the moon landing was a hoax, etc. Other than that, they were nice guys though. They'd go to the pub with the rest of us, laugh, sing, drink decaf tea, etc.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[stinerman]

I should have probably added that, but since I was making an argument from analogy, I didn't think it was necessary.

Thanks for letting everyone know, though.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[terrymr]

I thought some other group beat Al Qaeda to it. It's a bit late claiming responsibility when somebody else already claimed it.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[jafac]

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.

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

[dlbowm]

http://www.oklahomacitynationalmemorial.org/hist.h tm

This attack in the US back in the 90's was a moving van packed with home built explosives, parked on the street. It effectively destroyed a rather large building.

Londoners: My thoughts are with you. There is no excuse for this, but somehow we need to figure out how to fight back effectively without lowering ourseleves to their level.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[terrymr]

I know more than one person who thinks the French did it :-)

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[swillden]

I agree, and I'd go on to think that an American withdrawl would probably just result in the country degenerating into a civil war between the three factions. Then some radical Taliban-equse group would rise up and take control of the country via violent military action. Just like what happened after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan.

Take the next step.

That is almost certainly what would happen and then the US would be responsible for turning a stable, moderately prosperous nation (albeit a dictatorship) into another Afghanistan, complete with grinding poverty, brutal warlords and oppressive theocracies.

It is crucial that we stay until the fledgling Iraqi government is capable of holding things together.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[demachina]

"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

[mpe]

That said, I think the odds are in favour of "Al-Qaeda" affiliated groups.

"Al-Qaeda" might as well equate to "unknown".

As others have pointed out there is no monolithic AQ organisation; any random wannabe-martyr can blow people up and claim it for A.Q.

The more or less have to now, otherwise the press won't take them seriously.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[mpe]

Also madrid proved again that there may be people with huge interest in pointing the finger at the wrong group. So keeping options open until real and somewhat independand evidence is in would be the smart move.

Just hope that any suspects don't "conveniently" blow themselves up.

It would suck if it would take years before stories indicating the real attackers would surface.

It could take rather more than years...

A story that is slowly becoming more and more credible is the idea that iran might be behind the bombing of an airliner over lockerbie. Nothing "islamic fundamentalist" about that, just payback for an iranian airliner that was shot down by the US by mistake. Ofcourse pointing the finger at iran wasn`t conveniant at the time becouse it was to play a role in gulf war one...

However it is convenient to blame Iran now.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[mpe]

We were attacked first. WTC Bombings... USS Cole... Misc Embassy Bombings, and then the WTC collapse. Hey, and guess what. We were not over there at all!!!

Assuming "We" equates to the USA and "over there" equates to the Middle East you could not be more wrong. The US has been majorly messing with the govenments and politics of that region for over 60 years.
Another problem is that with the majority of these examples it's very unclear who "they" are in the first place. Conspiracy theories trumpeted by governments and corporate media are no subsitute for proper evidence.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[mpe]

Exactly. At the current time this would be of no benefit to the IRA. The IRA are on ceasefire and are contemplating a call by Gerry Adams to move their agenda forward solely by peaceful political means.

The IRA is not the only Irish terrorist group. It's also plenty of elements in Northern Ireland who would like to see the back of Gerry Adams.
"Who benefits" something important to consider when looking for those responsible.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[dynamo]

Luckily Art Bell is the most reliable and scientific source anywhere.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Although your list of targets very effectively refutes one of the grandparent's points, another point was that the IRA usually gives a warning before an attack on civilians. These warnings include a code word to indicate that the warning is `official'. If nothing else, they make it easier to determine who's behind the attack. Since there was no warning today, it is less likely that this was an IRA attack.

As an aside, these warnings have often been no more than a formality, because they came too late, were unclear, or were plain wrong. And of course, despite these `humane' warnings the IRA is still a bunch of dangerous psychopaths.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Citizen of Earth]

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 insurgency would indeed end in a short time because the "insurgents" backed by countries like Iran and Syria would take over the country.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[nickos]

I'm sure it was a group affiliated with Al Qaeda, but I can't help wondering why they attacked the Edgware Road tube in London's Arab district?

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Citizen of Earth]

One of the drivers is that Arab civilization used to be the pinnacle of education and knowledge, the center of the entire world -- heck, they're called the 'arabic' numbers. But, the center of gravity has shifted west and they've been left out of it.

The West decided to embrace science and the Middle-East decided to embrace religion.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[rossifer]

What did we do to provoke it? Fill us in....

Specifically in this case, the US supports the Saudi ruling family against the population of Saudi Arabia. The US also has also supported Israel and their side of that mess for decades, a position almost guaranteed to excite suicide level animosity among people on the other side of the feud.

I don't mean to get into a "who cast the first stone" argument re: Israel, but we've chosen sides in a regional blood feud, and we shouldn't be too suprised when some of the blood ends up on our shores. We've also supported despotic governments against their people and again, shouldn't be too suprised when some of those people decide to hit back at the power behind their oppressors.

And that's only two causal actions by the US that almost certainly contributed to 9/11. There's no real need to bring up all the rest of America's foreign policy nightmares through the 20th century... Pinochet? The Shah of Iran? Saddam Hussein? The list goes on and on...

Regards,
Ross

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[meringuoid]

The other thing is - I would have expected AQ to do the old "airplane into big-ben" thing. . .

That stunt won't work again. It worked in 2001 because the advice given in case of hijacking was to cooperate and not cause trouble. It made sense back then: hijackers generally either want to be taken somewhere, or want to issue demands to be met in exchange for release of hostages. Either way your best bet was just to wait for it all to be over. The kamikaze attacks on 11 September changed the rules: now, an attempted hijack is likely to meet resistance from the passengers, who realise they're probably dead either way and might as well have a go at it, and if that is overcome the plane is probably going to be shot down anyway. It was one of those things that would only ever work once, but was bloody devastating when it did.

My Guess? Poseurs. Wannabe jihadists who don't have anything to do with AQ, but wish they did.

I reckon so. That said, I suspect al-Qa'eda hasn't really existed as an organisation since the invasion of Afghanistan. These days, it's more of a state of mind. We've now got hundreds of maniacal little jihadist groups, most of whom are about as competent and well-resourced as the Judaean People's Front (splitters!) but who will occasionally manage to do some damage in the name of al-Qa'eda and the great Osama - who has probably never heard of the group causing mayhem in his name, but I'm sure he will thoroughly approve.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[riots]

I'm so glad we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen...that's really been a success hasn't it?

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[ratpack91]

The G8 summit seems a more likely reason than London winning the Olympic bid just yesterday.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[fatboy]

That is, just because bin Laden believes that the US should get out of Saudi Arabia, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't.

Seems like bin Laden needs to take that up with the government of Saudi Arabia. I am sure that we would leave, if asked.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[HiThere]

I'm not even certain that I consider killing political figures, at least political figures that are trying to get you killed, as evil at all. Certainly less evil than a military invasion. (Actually, it's less evil than a military invasion whether they're trying to get you killed or not, but that's another matter. It's also quite difficult, and THAT's another matter.)

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[terrymr]

Bin Laden is pissed because we shut down his funding after the russians pulled out of afghanistan. Just goes to show how we should be more careful picking our allies.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[HiThere]

I pretty much think you're dead on, with one slight correction: ...
9/11 as tragic as it was,
strike: lead to, and replace by: was used and an excuse for
an overreaction by the U.S. that resulted in ...

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[myowntrueself]

"The terrorists thrive on this scenario"

You are absolutely right but you miss one thing; governments also thrive on this scenario.

Governments of nations such as the USA, UK and dare I say it, Israel (for example), are *equally* terrorists.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[ratpack91]

err Canary Warf is the tallest office/habitable building in the country. Surely everbody knows that.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[mr100percent]

Ok, let's deal with them in order.

• 1993 WTC Bombing. Was Ramzi Yusuf an Al Qaeda member? As you said, Al Qaeda may not have existed in 1993 Did we ever find out his motive? February 26, the date of the bombing, was the 2 year anniversary of the day the first Gulf War was won. Terrorists like to strike on anniversaries; that seems the most likely conclusion. The Gulf war left a lot of disgruntled people, sanctions, civilian casualties, etc. and I imagine they wanted to get revenge. Who knows what made them do it, maybe they thought they could play Robin Hood.
• NYC Landmark bomb plot - Well, an Israeli ambassador was targeted, along with a Jewish senator. Sounds like they had a specific goal.
• Operation Bojinka- Attacking the Pope was both a diversion and probably some sort of attack on the "Crusaders" as ludicrous as that sounds. Blowing up planes, that appears to be aimed at making the US stop intervening in the Phillipines. Targeting the CIA headquarters, does that even need explanation? The CIA has been blamed for and admitted to overthrowing the PM of Iran, giving Saddam Hussein money and weapons, giving Iran money and weapons, aiding in the Gulf War (and reinstating the dictator of Kuwait). Any one of those things could be their cause for retaliation (and this is a short list, it goes on even longer for South America). In fact, the CIA is widely feared in much of the globe.
• Khobar towers bombing- A No Brainer. Bin Laden wanted the US military out of the Holy Land, away from Mecca and Medina, and to stop propping up the Saudi monarchy. This and the recent series of attacks in Saudi Arabia is targeted at the Saudi government and foreigners, with the goal of driving the foreigners out and making it easy to topple the Saudi rulers.
• African US Embassy Bombings- In a CNN interview, Bin Laden denied participating, but supported them. By this time, he had made his infamous fatwa declaring war on America (though Taliban leader and Bin Laden's higher-up Mullah Omar said that Bin Laden was unqualified to make fatwas). The embassies are seen by these people as a CIA tool and base to operate in each country, so they went after it as a strategic target.
• Millenium Attack plots- Targeting Israeli and US tourists, a US airport, and a US military vessel. It seems they were trying to fight both America and Israel all at once, maybe pressure America to cut support of Israel
• USS Cole bombing- Al Qaeda considered itself at war with the US. Having US military in their country was an act of aggression in their eyes, like having an Iraqi battleship parked in the US harbor. Many Yemenis didn't like the US loitering around like that in their country, they didn't trust them and felt concerned. Why was that boat there anyway? Was it sending a message to the Yemeni government to stay in line or something?

Al Qaeda's main purpose is supposedly to fight back at American aggession, as they see it. If you read Bin Laden's speeches, his core grievances are clear, he wants the US out of Saudi Arabia, he wants the US to stop supporting Israel, he wants Israel to stop oppressing the Palestinians (though he hasn't helped them), and he wants the US to stand aside and let the Muslims make their own political changes without US intervention or input (this includes toppling dictatorships and creating Islamic law, and doesn't want the US to get in the way)

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[ThePromenader]

No self-sufficient country can ever have reason for attacking another, nor could it have any reason for provoking attack.

Business is individuals who trade in what they produce. Government, at least in a democracy, would be a group of individuals who vote and preserve laws governing what it considers to be good or bad for itself. If a government begins to mix the two in deciding laws "helping" its "leading traders" to trade with another country, the concerned traders are no longer dealing in democratic business and the government is no longer a democracy. What's more, if the government-led agreement results in a profit for those normally unconcerned with any production process, and/or if the agreement results in more than generous profits for one party at the expense of another (work/earnings ratio), there's more than a possibility that there will be some left with a feeling of jealousy or with a sense of being exploited.

I don't care what name it goes under, any organised effort is politics. When one political entity takes action against another, if it is not pure agression for material gain, it would be for one of the above reasons - retaliation against exploitation or an attempt to get (or quell) a piece of the "free money" pie.

Already through the above there are shades of grey, but when you add groups that have both of the just-mentioned goals for reasons of agression, things get even cloudier - and more dishonest.

The whole point of democracy is to make things black and white. Laws stating very clearly what is "good" and "bad" for itself are voted, and the majority's view becomes letter.

I'm sure that you can see much of the above in many of the world's conflicts. Unmix the business, get rid of the grey, and things will once again become clear. And less people will die.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[mav[LAG]]

I mean it's possible that the old joke about the intelligence of Irish terrorists is true ("one tried to blow up my car once, but he burnt his lips on the exhaust pipe") has some truth to it, but still

I never heard jokes about thick Paddies from the Royal Engineers bomb squad guys, because the guys who made the bombs most certainly were not...

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[ThreeE]

How was liberating Iraq and eliminating a tyrant an overreaction?

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[HiThere]

Yes, but this is a REVERSAL of the earlier period when the Middle-East embraced science and the west embraced religion.

Don't think that sience is in a stable position in the west, either. Kansas is quite equivocal about supporting evolution (the center pin, the sine qua non, of modern biological sciences) and it isn't alone in it's stupidity. Large percentages of people consider astrology more reliable than astronomy. Etc. We continually teter on the edge of slipping back into superstition as the main pole of our culture. (It might end up being materialism, but that's as superstitious as any other religion.) Active inquiry, the scientific approach, requires work to maintain. If you stop, you fall. Where you end up isn't certain, because there are so many possibilities. But it won't be science.

That said, NOBODY takes a scientific approach to all aspects of their life. NOBODY. There just isn't enough time for the effort. Everybody has areas where they just accept doctrine (source unspecified...too many possibilities).

It wouldn't surprise me for the US, at least, to go into some fundamentalist version of the religious wars that tore down the midieval moslem cultures (Tamerlane [Timur-i-leng] is largely to blame for that one...but the follow-up was indigenous), and for India, China, or Japan (Korea? and outside chance) to replace us as the leading exponent of science. It's proven valuable enough that SOMEONE will pick it up, even if it is a lot of work.

OTOH, there's a perhaps better chance that the singularity will overtake us before this happens. (Is this good? I'm not sure I trust the singularity, but I think I consider it a better chance than a serious of religious wars, where I would be a heretic whoever was in power.)

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[HiThere]

Baz-faz! Being a government gives one no special divine right, it merely gives one the power to abuse others without their having legal recourse.

One could reasonably claim that being the leader of a group composed solely of people who have chosen to follow you was a BETTER claim to legitimacy than being the leader of a group where nearly half only accept your authority because they can't get away. (I don't accept that. That's a claim based purely on power "Me and my gang and beat you up, so don't object!", without any ethics. I suppose it could claim to be based on morals "the herd is always right", but that's a separate matter.)

None of this justifies the use of force against people not involved (or only involved tangentially, or against their wills). But since it's really based on power politics, neither morals nor ethics ever get a hearing, except as PR.

P.S.: If I were to pick one of the two to call a fascust, I would pick either Blair or Bush over Bin Laden. Fascism is basically the corporate state. Generally it's sociallist, based on corporations controlling the government. (This is taken from Mussolini's ideas, and he coined the word.) Bin Laden doesn't qualify, as he doesn't have a (visible) power sharing agreement with corporations.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[johansalk]

They're not retaliating for the success of the West, they're retaliating for the inconsiderate interference of the West in their own development, and they have a point of truth in that the US foreign policy in the Middle East has been far from kind. There's a reason why those bombs didn't go in Germany's industrial states, or in Paris' entertainment clubs. Heck, it's hard not to empathise with them at times seeing that the US has not abandoned its shenanigans - Tenet criticised Chavez of Venezuela a couple of years ago or so by saying that "he does not have the interest of the US at heart" - why should an elected person of an indepdent nation have the interest of the US in his heart and not that of his citizens?! Next thing you had was the US orchestrating a kleptocratic coup against Chavez that almost succeeded, and a US-registered plane to kidnap him out of the country, just like they did with Aristide in Haiti where they arranged a coup to topple him as an elected president and send him to Africa - watch the documentary film "the Revolution will not be televized" by Irish documentarians to see how they did this.

Ever since the US's CIA arranged a coup in Iran in 1953 to remove an elected prime minister the Iranians have resented the US foreign policy, and the US has sought to do the same and sponsor despots around the world. Of the $15 Billion the US claims in aid to the developing nations a third actually goes to Israel, Egypt and Columbia - Israel's aid, despite it being one of the highest per capita countries in the world, is mostly military aid that invariably gets used to suppress the Palestians who get pennies to help them with the results of the US aid to Israel. The US aid to Egypt sustains a despot regime and is a reason for Al Qaeda's hatred for the US, given that Al Qaeda's Al Zawahiri - second in command and main ideaologue - was one of many who suffered from its human rights abuses. Equally was Qutub and most of the Egyptian ideologues and later members of Al Qaeda. The Columbian government too is equally abusive and has sought to interfer in Venezuela. And let's not forget the support of the US for despotic oil fortunes and royal families in Saudi Arabia and throughout the Gulf region countries in which many of Al Qaeda leadership grew up such as Bin Laden.

Additionally, most of the rest of the US aid, more than 90% of it, is actually subsidies to US contractors, many of which are in the military industrial complex - which inevitably causes suffering to the poor of the world. This contrasts with Europe that, not only that it gives more than 3 times as much aid as the US does, at $49 Billion, but far more of that is actually "real aid". http://www.actionaid.org.uk/1674/press_release.htm l

Though the US claims to spread democracy around the world, the evidence is that it's a heinous offender when it comes to the real evidence. Even after 9/11 - in Haiti, Venezuela, and other examples the US has not ceased from screwing up the development of the poor to serve the interests of its "special" industries.

It's hard not to empathise with the terrorists given how heinous the US foreign policy has been - in fact, I won't hesitate in saying that I respect Bin Laden for his principled stance for the poor than I care for racketeering Cheney who was responsible for killing literally more than a million of Muslims and Arabs in Iraq and elsewhere in illegal wars and war crimes that you can google for if you had been living under a table for many years. http://www.commondreams.org/views/090600-105.htm

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[demachina]

Uh, I don't know, maybe because Iraq and Saddam HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

I guess maybe your right, the Iraq war couldn't have been an overreaction to 9/11 since its wasn't a reaction to it at all since there was no connection between the two outside of the fabrications of the Bush administration.

But on the other hand as recently as Bush's prime time speech a week ago he was STILL trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 and using 9/11 to justify a largely unprovoked invasion. I could have seen taking down Saddam back in the early 90's when he invaded Kuwait, but to wait more than a decade and then do it with no real justification put the U.S. and Britain dangerously close to war crimes charges because thats what people who launch unprovoked aggressive wars are branded as these days, Saddam was one when he invaded Kuqait, Hitler was one, now the U.S. and Britain are in the same league. How sad :)

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[demachina]

"Except for the minor detail that the terrorists are doing everything they can to inflict maximum civilian casualities"

Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong. Try again. The U.S and Britain were doing everything they could to maximize civilian casualties during World War II. How else can you explain the fire bombing of cities like Dresden and pretty much every city in Japan. Japanese cities were all built from wood so mass incendiary bombing created some wonderous fire storms that killed almost nothing but civilians which is mostly what you find in most citites.

Or lets take Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the U.S. had been trying to minimize civilian casualties they would have dropped them on military targets that weren't in the middle of large cities. They also probably could have dropped one not two. The Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous killing of civilians designed to "terrorize" Japan in to unconditional surrender. It was precisely "terrorism" American's cherish their double standards though, like most people, though more so.

Militaries will SAY they are trying to minimize casualties, and they probably do try more now than they used to, partially because the global press scrutiny is harsher than it once was. Still the U.S. routinely kills people from high altitude and long distance with no real knowledge of weather the target is full of civlians or insurgents. There are only two options, in a guerilla war:

- Dont kill insurgents so you don't kill civilians
- Kill insurgents and you are going to civilians

There isn't a third option.

Another example, its well documented that the U.S. declared regions of Vietnam as free fire zones, which meant the U.S. military was licensed to kill everyone in those zones, full well knowing many if not most were innocent civilians.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[johansalk]

" It depends on who you think cast the first stone. Based on bin Laden's fatwa, I'd say that his greviances are genuine and meritable, but the action taken was not in proportion to the damage done." - Indeed, America caused the death of literally more than a million Arabs leading up to 9/11. Definitely not in proportion. http://www.commondreams.org/views/090600-105.htm

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Anonymous Coed]

I think I speak for a lot of people here when I say, fuck the "holy" city of of Mecca. We were in Saudia Arabia at the invitation of its government, such as it is. By the way, I just declared Round Rock, Texas to be a Holy City and inviolable by any infidels.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[demachina]

I think you missed some of the subtelty in my post, I didn't say he WAS an anarchist. I just, correctly, said he was widely refered to as an anarchist. Like I said, in the early 20th century everyone opposed to "the powers that be" was called an "anarchist" just like today they are called "terrorists". The power that be defined anyone who was opposed to their grip on power as an "anarchist" so they made it look sound they were the preservers of "order" and anyone who opposed them was advocating chaos (a.k.a. anarchy). Most people don't like the sound of anarchy which is why it was an effective term to use in propaganda.

The definition of an anarchist they were using, was someone who was trying to overthrow the established powers. "The Black Hand" were revolutionaries and nationalists trying to drive the Habsburgs out of the Balkans. To the Habsburgs, their allies and royal kin throughout Europe that meant they were "anarchists" because they were trying to topple the Habsburgs.

Most muslim groups we brand as "terrorists" today are really nationalists, with a heavy religion angle, trying to topple governments they dont like. Al Qaeda was born out of the effort to throw the Russian infidel invaders out of a Muslim state, Afghanistan. Many of their members are dedicated to toppling the governments of Saudi Arabi and Egypt, using terminology of the early 20th century they would be called "anarchists", versus the terminology of the early 21st century where they are called "terrorists", same, same. Most of the middle east groups we brand as "terrorist" like Hamas are nationalists trying to drive Israel out of Palestine to regain control of the homeland they were driven out of in stages after World War II.

See the similarity.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[R3d M3rcury]

"[...] it's just the government can't say '400 people are dead' until it has a chance to examine 400 bodies."

Maybe this is different in the UK than here in the USA, but not having accurate information never stopped officials here in the US.

For example, on September 24th, the New York Police Department's official estimate of the number of deaths in the World Trade Center was 6,659. Three months later, the death-toll was 3,011. Today it stands at less than 2,800.

There's some information that only comes with time.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[riots]

I thought I might bring out some sort of thoughtless comment like this. Not that I really want to get into a dialogue with someone who is so mentally challenged, but that is exactly the point - there is no easy answer, and killing people in far away countries might satisfy people wanting to lash out for a quick fix, but is more than likely make things worse.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[ThreeE]

Pure crap. Saddam was paying PLO terrorists. That alone was enough justification. Add to that his threats and weapons programs and we have more than enough evidence to justify a policy of preventative (or -emptive) strike.

War crimes?!? Please...you are so out of the mainstream. Bush's policies are key to eliminating the slime on this planet.

I don't know where you live, but I guarantee in the long run it will be a better place because of these policies.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Ashe Tyrael]

Interestingly, if you're interesting in forwarding "Islam" (or at least the terrorist perversion of same) then Edgeware road is probably the last place you want to do it. From what I recall, it's pretty much the centre of the Islamic community in London, large numbers of mosques, etc.

While I'd imagine that it wasn't aimed directly at being at Edgeware road (just somewhere along that stretch of line) it's still a way of shooting yourself in the foot with regards to your putative supporters.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[jamesh]

It's not very secret now is it.

That name kind of reminds me of the 'Life of Brian' movie. I can just imagine a heap of different organisations with names like:

The peoples front of Al Qaeda
The Al Qaeda peoples front
The Al Qaeda liberation army

All consisting of a small handful of 'all talk, no action' people, all making a lot of noise, and all distracting attention away from those who are really making bad things happen.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[-Harlequin-]

Pure crap. Saddam was paying PLO terrorists.

What did PLO terrorists have to do with 9/11?
AFAIK, all the evidence both then and now, says "nothing".

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[demachina]

So Saddam, was paying PLO terrorists, lets spend $500 billion dollars, kill a couple thousand American soldiers, and piss off the entire world doing Israel's dirty work for them. Hate to break it to you the Saudi's pay PLO terrorists too, why aren't we taking them down too. All the Arab states support the Palastinians. The Palastinians were thrown out of their homes, off their land and out of their homeland, and have been sitting in squalid refugee camps for most of the last 50 years, homeless and stateless. They need some help.

"Add to that his threats and weapons programs"

Dude, you seem to be stuck in 2001. Everyone, including the Bush administration has admited there were no weapons programs worth anything any time recently. Saddam's aids maybe told them there were some, and Chalibi set up a scam in which people like CurveBall lied and told the Bush administration there were weapons programs, and the Bushists were all to willing to believe the lies. If Saddam, had any weapons "programs" they must have been bad ones because they didn't keep him in power.

"War crimes?!? Please...you are so out of the mainstream. Bush's policies are key to eliminating the slime on this planet."

Well it aint working because your apparently still here ;)

Out of the mainstream huh, well if you've read the Downing Street Memo, Blair's inner circle openly discussed the risk that they would be open to war crimes charges if they invaded Iraq based on fabrication, which is exactly what happened.

We have a problem in this world if a country like the U.S. can fabricate a case for war against any country they choose, take the country down on the whim of a cracked, power mad, President and Vice President, and never have to answer for it. Whose next, Syria or Iran?

"I don't know where you live, but I guarantee in the long run it will be a better place because of these policies."

Well you just proved you have no clue what you are talking about and how stuck you are on yourself, because I guarantee you, that you, me nor anyone else, has a clue where these policies are going to take us in the long run.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[ThreeE]

Whose next, Syria or Iran?

Excellent ideas -- and I believe plans are in place. Syria is supporting the Iraqi insurgency and Iran is run by a hostage-taking terrorist.

These policies are just what the world needs.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[demachina]

"We stand for freedom; they stand for expanding their own power"

Probably should ask before I start this rant, who exactly is "We" and "They". Those are kind of vague terms.

Oh well, I cant wait to start the rant, I'm assuming "We" is the blessed United States of America and the "They" is all the devil's spawn who oppose her.

First, Dude, you need to stop kidding yourself.

OK here is the first hint, just a little clue, what nation refers to itself as the worlds sole remaining superPOWER. You see superPOWER means they have a whole lot of POWER. If the U.S. isn't seeking to expand its POWER the only explanation is because it already has all the POWER so its no longer possible to expand the POWER any further.

Maybe you could have sold the "we stand for freedom" part if you'd stopped there. But I assure you if there is one entity completely devoted to expanding its power in the world its the United States.

You don't spend $500 billion a year on weapons, wars and intelligence unless you are planning on using it to expand your power. You dont put troops in like 120 countries unless you are intent on expanding your power. You don't have a dozen aircraft carriers and thousands of nukes unless you are bent on expanding your power.

You don't invade a country every 5 years or so and change their government unless you want power, well maybe if you installed freedom you would have a case but we have installed more dictatorships than democracies over the last 100 years. You don't stage coups every few years, topple sovereign governments, and install puppets, often ruthless and despotic dictators as puppets if you "stand for freedom" and are disinterested in power. I assure you the list of countries where the U.S has installed or kept in power ruthless dictators is long and well documented. The mess that is Iran today is entirely due to the United States installing and keeping in power the Shah of Iran, a ruthless dictator who was the antithesis of freedom. Marcos in the Phillipines, Diem in Vietnam, Pinochet in Chile, Samosa in Nicaragua, Guatamala, El Salvador, Argentina, this list goes on for a while, all places where the U.S. sold freedom down the river, and peoples in to slavery, in the pursuit of wealth and POWER.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Woko]

I really don't recall the IRA ever doing anything so big. Their worst attrocities were two incidents where they blew up pubs.

Personally, I thought planting bombs outside McDonalds on Mothers Day while not huge in the scale of casualties, definately ranks up there as an atrocity.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[demachina]

"and I believe plans are in place"

Dude, you are too funny. I'm sure they were in place until it turned out the Iraqi's didn't greet the U.S. with roses, and the U.S. military got itself tied completely up in Iraq. The U.S. military is stretched so thin it can't do ANYTHING else without a draft. If the U.S. can't occupy a little mostly flat place like Iraq they have no chance controlling Iran.

There is zero chance the Bush administration could sell another war to the American people unless they fabricate one whopping lie of a case for it. Not sure anyone would believe it the second time around now that everyone realizes they are liars and they got a couple thousand Americans killed based on those lies, and are costing us hundreds of billions of dollars we dont have.

"hostage-taking terrorist"

In case you haven't heard your President is a hostage taking terrorist too :) If you haven't heard of Rendition its a program where the U.S. has been snatching people around the globe, and throwing them in a jet to be tortured in various dicatorships around the world. Hostage taking terrorist indeed.

I think its still every much open to debate if Iran's new president had much to do with the embassy. The current government of Iran is bad but so was the Shah, the ruthless dictator the U.S. installed and propped up before 1979 and so maddened the Iranian people that they were pushed in to the arms of the Islamic Revolution, and in to thinking the Ayatollahs were an improvement over the Shah. Bottomline is if you don't like the Iranian government, you can mostly blame the U.S. because its misguided policies laid the foundation for it.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[ThreeE]

Yeah, yeah, it's all our fault.

If you believe the US can't afford "hundreds of billions of dollars" you haven't looked at how much we blow on pizza.

Precision munitions provide great leverage.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[mr100percent]

Since when does a King legitimately represent the people of the country? So what if the King "invites" them in, he's viewed as being under Bush's thumb, or Michael Moore sees Bush as a puppet of the Saudi royal family, or whatever. Too confusing.

When the Gulf War was over, why didn't the US Army leave? Why didn't the King have the guts to tell the armed force to leave his country? Was he afraid they'd make trouble and threaten him if he tried to remove them?

And by the way, one person declaring Round Rock to be holy is worthless. Come back to me when you have 1.5 Billion followers and a message sent by God stating that the city is closed to non-believers.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[demachina]

"Yeah, yeah, it's all our fault."

As a matter of fact, in Iran, yes it is. The Shah held and gained power almost entirely thanks to the U.S. backing him. He was a corrupt despot, who brutalized his people. They stormed the U.S. Embassy to exact revenge for America's destructive role in their country. Only hope you have for finding many friends for the U.S. in Iran are among the young who don't remember the Shah.

"If you believe the US can't afford "hundreds of billions of dollars" you haven't looked at how much we blow on pizza."

I think you should probably focus your attention on the U.S. current account deficit, instead of pizza. Its running around 6.4% of GDP and will easily hit a new high over $800 billion this year. The U.S. is a nation living lavishly on borrowed money and borrowed time. The U.S. wont be able to afford anything if foreign banks and investors decide to stop propping up its trade and budget deficits.

"Precision munitions provide great leverage."

Only if you can find targets.

I'm sure the U.S. could sieze Tehran, I just doubt the U.S. could control the place. Once it turns in to an insurgency as it has in Iraq all of America's shiny weapons are nearly useless. You need grunts to patrol streets and to be fed in to the meat grinder. Chances are you will need draftee's since most young Americans are realizing its no fun patrolling streets in the Middle East where people want to kill you.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[demachina]

"Yeah, yeah, it's all our fault."

Forgot to add, do a Google search on TPAJAX, the CIA operation that overthrew the government of Iran and restored the Shah to his throne in 1953 and which also gave U.S. oil companies extensive access to Iranian oil at the expense of the British and the Iranian people.

Then do a seatch on SAVAK, the Shah's secret police. They were one of the most feared and despised in the 20th century which is quite an achievement. The Shah was never very popular with the people of Iran. He crowned himself king of kings in 1967, and become increasingly erratic and repressive. He held power through the '70's largely thanks to fear of SAVAK. In a lot of ways he resembled Saddam though most of his American backers will never admit it.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[eoinmadden]

True. The CIRA or RIRA could have been responsible. It seems unlikely now, since an Al Qeada group have claimed responsibillity. But it is a possibility.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[CastroDemocrat]

I respectfully disagree with your post in its entirety, but want to focus on the notion of our capabilites being so "stretched so thin it can't do ANYTHING else without a draft. There will never again be a draft. Today's warfare isn't like it was when the draft was in place. We don't need "bodies" just to hold space (or a gun). It is so expensive to adequately train and equip today's soldiers that we cannot, and do not want to, afford to train soldiers who don't want to be there. We are not occupying Iraq. We don't even fly the American flags our bases. We are liberating Iraq - and it's not some sort of lame cliche, but rather an important distinction: if we were an occupying force there, we would have more of our full-time troops there, driving tanks and Bradleys. Instead, we mobilized our reserve troops overwhelmingly, who are driving humvees and jeeps. Barely any Navy...barely any Airforce...this isn't war. Iran could be war, Syria could be war, hell, Korea could be war. I don't like to say it, but I kinda feel like we are half-assing it in Iraq for politics-sake. Because we don't want to mobilize full-time troops, we hired contractors and are slow to add more troops if necessary. In the end, I hope for the best in Iraq (we all do). Still, Iraq is not a fitting example of military might, rather an illustration of our ill-preparedness for this kind of post-Cold War war.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[demachina]

Sorry man but you for what ever reason have no understanding of the situtation in Iraq or the situation the Army and Marines are in.

The Army and the Marines simply don't have the troops to maintain the relatively small force in Iraq. They might have a enough if they stopped rotating forces out after a year or if they abandoned places like Korea. The Army and Marines have been dramaticly downsized in favor of high tech weapons, the air force and the Navy. The U.S. military is no longer designed for extended occupation duty.

You can split hairs whether its liberation or occupation. I bet you from an Iraqi perspective which is all that counts, if you are Shia or Kurd they are liberators, if you are Sunni they are occupiers. The fact is the U.S. and British military are the only thing keeping the current government in power, and they aren't leaving anytime soon. It is a subject of some serious debate if the U.S. will ever leave in total. Most educated guesses are some of those bases are permenent and will replace bases in Saudi Arabia which are being abandoned because Saudi Arabia puts to many constraints on them. Iraq is also better for projecting power at, threatening, and potentially invading Iran and Syria.

If they stop rotating forces they would quickly end up with a force more broken than it already is and they wouldn't be able to retain the people they have. Most people don't want to be away from their families for years at a time or stuck in a hell hole like Iraq for any length of time.

They aren't overutilizing the Gaurd and Reserves out of choice. They have to. The Army and Marines don't have the numbers or skill sets for occupation duty. In particular many of the military police units essential for occupation duty were intentionally moved in to the gaurd and reserve because they didn't think they were needed in any numbers until Iraq turned in to a quagmire.

And of course the Army and Marines are now consistently missing their recruiting goals. A volunteer army works up until you get entangled in an ugly guerilla war, where soldiers can't see the enemy and have to patrol streets under constant risk of IED's, car bombs and snipers. Most people are smart enough to not volunteer for that kind of duty.

They are using Bradley's less because they weren't designed to be constantly driven, especially for long distances escorting convoys. The tracks in particular were wearing out at a massive and expensive rate. The Army is trying to switch over to Strykers because they are cheaper to operate and their wheels are better suited to extended driving and occupation duty. But they are more vulnerable to IED's. Bradley's and M1 tanks would be a plus due to the heavy armor but their weaponary is totally inappropriate for occupation duty in cities where there are seldom any visible targets. Again they are to expensive to operate and they would quickly be worn out using them for patrol and convoy duty, not to mention they are to slow for convoy duty.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Anonymous Coed]

Since when does a King legitimately represent the people of the country? ... When the Gulf War was over, why didn't the US Army leave? Why didn't the King have the guts to tell the armed force to leave his country? Was he afraid they'd make trouble and threaten him if he tried to remove them?

Blah blah blah blah.... just shut up.

And by the way, one person declaring Round Rock to be holy is worthless. Come back to me when you have 1.5 Billion followers and a message sent by God stating that the city is closed to non-believers.

Ohhhh... so "God" made it holy! I see. It all makes sense now. So basically what you are saying is that if I can find one other person that also says Round Rock is a holy city, then it suddenly becomes twice as holy! Amazing how that works.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[jafac]

Interestingly, if you're interesting in forwarding "Islam" (or at least the terrorist perversion of same) then Edgeware road is probably the last place you want to do it

Okay then, how 'bout this theory?

Not Jihadists, but neocon operatives planted the bomb.

To give Bush cover in the press to appoint a radical Supreme Court Justice, and to divert attention away from the Valerie Plame case.

Of course, if you buy THAT theory, then you're pretty much buying the notion that Al Qaeda are neocon operatives, that an inner-circle of them works FOR the neocon agenda, or an overlapping of the neocon agenda with the jihadist agenda (global religious war, overall elimination of Liberalism and Atheism, or Secular Humanism, in the US, and everywhere), but it does explain a lot of the wacky conspiracy-theory stuff I've heard about 9/11 (planes didn't bring down the WTC towers, planned explosive demolition did - the purpose was to destroy evidence the DOJ had stored on massive financial fraud cases that make Enron look like a kid who drank the lemonade at his lemonade stand).

There's a lot of things in our "official stories" that don't make one damn bit of sense. The goofy conspiracy theories seem to make MORE sense. Which do I choose to believe? I believe I'll have another beer.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[kraut]

1. It wasn't a "reaction", it was an action. It had nothing to do with 9/11.
2. "liberating" is a term that can only be used by the victors - I think the jury's still out on whether the coalition is victorious in the occupation.

As for the tyrant.. well, you helped to install him in the first place, and were happy to prop him up while he was busy attacking Iran (which used to be run by a US puppet). Kinda hard to claim the big moral highground here.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Puba the Fool]

You say that: "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." I think you are wrong; they would triple their efforts because they would feel that victory is at hand. The place would then collapse into civil war, after the Shiites and the Kurds react. No one could govern and it would be bad for the common Iraqis. Eventually it may end up there anyway, but given the current situation, keeping US troops in Iraq is the best chance that Iraq has. (That doesn't mean that going in to Iraq was a good idea in the first place.)

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[johansalk]

Hi. Thanks for the thoughtful response. Whatever concerns the US had about Chavez' idea of democracy their sponsored coup was atrociously undemocratic and it fits with much of what they did many times to topple legitimiately-elected leaders and replace them with despotic regimes.

As for Ghandi and Mandela, and particularly the latter, sorry Sir, they both are grossly-glamourised media darlings and whatever they did or said had little to do as a direct effect upon the British leaving India or the Apartheid ending in South Africa. I have respect for Ghandi for his Leo Tolstoy scholarship and think he had good influences to derive his writings from and things to say, but that's about it - The British leaving India has primarily Hitler to thank for weaking Britain too much to continue acting as a leading empire and then the rising of the US and Soviets superpowers as reflected in post-world war II world order. Look up the "Atlantic Charter"; it was Roosevelt who forced Churchill to effectively dismantle the British empire as a condition of US assistance to Britain in the early years of WWII - Churchill had tried to resist and nothing he had heard from Ghandi apparently persuaded him before, and it was none other than the fear of facing Germany without the Americans that made him sign the agreement that suited the US imperial abmitions.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[ThreeE]

Not claiming any morality here at all. Regime change was #1) in the best interest of the US and #2) in the best interest of the region/world.

The fact that the two items correlate is all I need to know about the situation's morality.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Anonymous Coed]

The Muslims ain't got shiat. Oh sure, I know they think they do, but they don't. They're as full of shiat as any other religion.

Responsibility

[Simon (S2)]

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)

Re:Responsibility

[AccUser]

How fitting, Al Qaeda prefers Aqua

Re:Responsibility

[Tune]

I'm not sure if this is genuine.
Although an Al Qaeda link should never be ruled out, they don't have a record of claiming responsibility directly after attacks. A tape that comfirmed the link between Osama's network and "9/11" surfaced months later, while the first days after the Madrid bombings ETA was falsely blamed.
Isn't it peculiar that this time asian sources have Al Qaeda claim responsibility *minutes* after the events occured?

--
All extremists should be taken out and shot

Re:Responsibility

[Xiver]

All extremists should be taken out and shot

Love the sig line, but don't you think it's a bit extreme?

Re:Responsibility

[Tune]

Got it ;-)

Re:Responsibility

[professionalfurryele]

Right now, I don't care who did it or what they want. I'm going to listen to the cricket and when I have calmed down I will think about what my position is.

Now is a time for defiance, and contemplation.

Re:Responsibility

[LK01]

Al-Qaeda might have claimed responsibility, but that alone does not make it correct, especially if we think about what really is the al-Qaeda. Many, if not most, terrorist experts believe that the al-Qaeda as presented in the media is mostly an exaggeration: even the name was first used by Western intelligence agencies. al-Qaeda isn't all powerful: the ideology and different radical Islamist groups exist, but the organization with wide spread terrorist cells etc. as portrayed in the media, probably does not.

People should check out this article: Does al-Qaeda exist?

"There is a 'rooted public perception of what al-Qaeda is', says Dolnik, who is currently carrying out research on the Terrorism and Political Violence Programme at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore; but, he says, such perceptions are far from accurate. Dolnik argues that where many imagine that al-Qaeda is 'a super organisation of thousands of super-trained and super-secret members who can be activated any minute', in fact it is better understood as something like a 'global ideology that has not only attracted many smaller regional groups, but has also facilitated the boom of new organisations that embrace this sort of radical and violent thinking'. Dolnik and others believe that, in many ways, the thing we refer to as 'al-Qaeda' is largely a creation of Western officials."

Re:Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't remember the source, but one article I read likened al Qaeda not to a structured organization, but rather a database of fighters- Osama bin Laden's Rolodex, basically- it started as mujahideen meeting up for that jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan two decades ago. The name al Qaeda itself can be translated as "the base," after all, and it may be more accurate to think of a loose confederation of terror cells, only tied together by a vague common mission of destablization of the West.

In other words, not some sort of organized terror syndicate which holds meetings and has an overall hierarchy. Osama appears as the central figure not so much because he has been the mastermind of individual attacks, but rather because 1. he's the person with connections, the one who can put persons of like mind together and 2. he has, or had, a lot of money.

Mobile network switched off...

[Phil John]

...they did this to stop any bombs that had a mobile-based detonation method from going off. The upshot however has been to create more panic as people cannot get hold of friends and family. Managed to get through to my brother who's only a few hundred yards away from old-street station on an old fashioned landline.

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[orion41us]

I think it was not so much that the mobile network was switched off rather that it could not handle the load,

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[Guppy06]

" The upshot however has been to create more panic as people cannot get hold of friends and family."

The UK government probably decided it was better to scare 10 people than to allow 1 to die.

On the other hand, the terrorists would probably want to scare 10 people rather than kill 1 (though accomplishing both is icing on the cake).

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[rsynnott]

The Vodafone network at least was switched over primarily to emergency services.

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[BigTom]

Mine worked, with signal, for the whole morning.

Some of the networks say they reconfigured to prioritise emergency service traffic which adversely affected ordinary users.

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[Ford Prefect]

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.

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[AccUser]

Yeah - I've got two siblings and associated partners who work in London, and the number of group sms messages I received telling me everyone was ok was significant to become annoying! Still, they are all ok, if anyone was wondering... :-)

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[Craster]

None of the networks were turned off. Priorities were shifted so that usage by the emergency services and people calling 999 were given priority. Lower priority calls were allowed to be bumped off.

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[simonpage]

The mobile networks are disabled to public numbers, to prevent remote detonation. The networks are still running for the emergency services only.

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[rfrenzob]

According to a report on CNN, Vodaphone switched off subscriber access to make sure emergency services could communicate.

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[blonde rser]

This was speculated on the news but it has since been announced (about 10 minutes ago) that no networks were shut off or damaged. It is just that they can't handle the amount of traffic very well. This was announced as confirmed when I heard it.

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[91degrees]

Well, they totally screwed up then. I received a text message but can't reply.

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[SilentSheep]

I can confirm that SMS's to London do get through. I have txted my friend who works on liverpool street, she replied saying she was fine, which was a huge relief.

So SMS's are getting through.

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[deverox]

The mobiel network in london was running at about 90% capacity but still operational. During emergencies a priority system is implamented so that emergency services and then government officieals get priority use on the network. Text messages is still the best way to communicate with people in London today.

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[gargleblast]

The mobile networks are disabled to public numbers, to prevent remote detonation.

A very common misinterpretation. In emergencies, mobile networks are reprioritised for emergency workers, at the expense of ordinary people and (one might say especially) journalists.

See Crypto-Gram: February 15, 2005 - Comments From Readers - Shutting Down the GPS/Cell Network. Scroll down a bit.

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[thesp]

Of course, the London Underground is just that, underground. There's rarely mobile phone reception, so that makes that particular attack vector unlikely. Far more likely simple timer devices.

News on the Wires saying

[osullish]

9 blasts, 6 underground 3 on buses - Der Spiegel Web site linking to an Al Queda Acceptance of responsibility...

travel updates for Southern england

[dj_paulgibbs]

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

Re:travel updates for Southern england

[Malc]

My brother's on the train from Bristol to London Paddington right now. He's on his way to France for work. Apparently the train will go all the way in, so he's planning to walk to Waterloo. You mentioned it in your post, but Paddington isn't listed on the Network Rail page you linked to. The only mainline stations listed on that page are the obvious ones (mainly on the tube lines from King's Cross to Algate). Of course, everybody should avoid travelling if they can, but if they do travel, to assume major delays and expect they might have to go well out of their way. It's quite impressive that some things still continue to operate.

Re:travel updates for Southern england

[Geeky]

Radio 2 announced Paddington was being evacuated about ten minutes ago.

Re:travel updates for Southern england

[Anonymous Coward]

River Services

Thames Clippers are providing free travel on all boats to and from the following London piers:

Savoy (Cleopatra's Needle)
Blackfriars
Bankside (Tate Modern)
London Bridge (south side near Hay's Galleria)
St Katharine Docks (Tower Bridge)
Canary Wharf (Canary Riverside)
Greenland (Surrey Quays)
Masthouse Terrace (Isles of Dogs)
Greenwich
Woolwich Arsenal

Re:travel updates for Southern england

[bitslinger_42]

Kings Cross and Charing Cross stations? You know, this might not be normal terrorists after all. Harry Potter book 6 comes out in a week or two, this could be a publicity stunt by Rowling's publicity engine. Wonder if Voldemort's going to claim responsibility.

Sniff, sniff. What's that smell? My karma, up in flames :-)

Re:travel updates for Southern england

[xlr8ed]

Wonder if Voldemort's going to claim responsibility. We do not speak his name!!!

Re:travel updates for Southern england

[Malc]

Well, not completely closed. His train did arrive, although three hours late. Now he's waiting for a later Eurostar, whose service was also temporarily interrupted.

Re:travel updates for Southern england

[Geeky]

Glad to hear it; I guess the report was either inaccurate (lots of misinformation floating around) or a temporary evacuation while a dodgy package was investigated.

It sounds like most mainline stations are getting back to normal.

Re:travel updates for Southern england

[jafac]

This is going to make my Mornington Crescent game a whole lot more difficult.

Re:travel updates for Southern england

[MosesJones]

Can I just say how bloody FANTASTIC the rail service was today. Bloody more punctual than on a normal day!

Unfortunately I read this thing on Slashdot, hired a car and spend 3 hours in traffic as a result of a standard accident on the M4.

London and the people who live and work here have been fucking superb.

Its still fucking scary though.

Mobiles

[Zouden]

The BBC is speculating that the reason it's been difficult to reach people on their mobiles is because the government switched the network off, in anticipation of phone-triggered bombs.
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

[ettlz]

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.)

Re:Mobiles

[BinaryCodedDecimal]

I find it interesting, therefore, that I was able to text my friends in London this morning to make sure they were OK.

And yes, I got replies.

Re:Mobiles

[Insipid Trunculance]

Torrent here.

Re:Mobiles

[Craster]

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.

"The Government" has no ability to shut off mobiles. The networks have reprioritised to allow calls by or to the emergency services priority over other calls. This can have the effect of preventing access by other users.

Re:Mobiles

[Raedwald]

Evidently only in the central London area in this case. I got an SMS message out here in Ealing from someone asking how I was (I used to work in Russell Square, near the bus bomb).

Re:Mobiles

[SnowZero]

The bombs in Madrid were set off using the alarm feature of the phones, so turning off the mobile network wouldn't have affected them at all.

There's no way they'd shut emergency response people out of the network, so at most it was shut to normal users. However I'm guessing the it was hard to make calls because (1) everyone was trying to use the network at once, and (2) emergency services get priority (and rightly so). Networks are built to withstand normal peak usage, and simply can't scale to everyone calling everyone they know in a short time.

Re:Mobiles

[blonde rser]

This was speculated on the news but it has since been announced (about 10 minutes ago) that no networks were shut off or damaged. It is just that they can't handle the amount of traffic very well. This was announced as confirmed when I heard it.

Re:Mobiles

[tezza]

I'm down at Butler's Wharf near Tower Bridge. No reception here. We are very close to Aldgate East and Liverpool Street as the crow flies.

But walk closer to Waterloo, where I quickly bought a bicycle to be able to get home to Belsize Park, and there is reception.

Hope you are all okay. Lots of people with near misses.

Re:Mobiles

[kevinbr]

Hmm, I worked for a large 3G mobile operator in the UK and there was a "secret" project ( I chatted to a PM about it so it was not so secret) for the Government to be able to selectively turn off base stations upon demand.

The government "owns" the spectrum. They can demand it be turned off, same as the US can selectivley turn off GPS.

Re:Mobiles

[Geeky]

Exactly. Let's face it, the mobile network breaks down every New Year's Eve at midnight when everyone tries to use it at once. Are we suggesting that this is a secret government conspiracy to stop people wishing each other a happy New Year?

Re:Mobiles

[nogginthenog]

Me too, however dialing/receiving calls was very intermittent.

Re:Mobiles

[Per Abrahamsen]

Shouldn't calls to emergency servives always have a higher priority compared to normal calls?

Re:Mobiles

[tfb]

The mobile network was not turned off, I think it just got clobbered by load as you'd expect - everyone in London has a phone and all of them tried to use it at the same time.

I'm in central London (I heard what I think was the Tavistock place explosion), and my phones (company one on Vodaphone and personal on Orange) have worked intermittently for most of the time. Indeed I got SMS messages saying I should stay at home while it was happening! Generally calls don't work but SMS does.

It's interesting though that they didn't turn off the network, because mobiles are a really good way to trigger things (though not generally in the tube of course - no signal).

In fact, one has to wonder at the competence of the authorities here: why did they not turn off mobiles given what they know? I suppose that there's a tradeoff - if you turn the networks off, then no one can ring their partners saying they're OK but will be late home etc, but on the other hand the bad guys can still use them to set things off.

The obvious approach would have been to forbid monbile to mobile calls but allow mobile to landline, and to have advertised this in advance. I imagine they didn't think about this because the last time we had serious terrorist issues (the IRA) was long enough ago that mobiles were not so common, and of course they are busy working out how to fight the last war in the standard way, instead of thinking ahead.

And, of course, our government would prefer to obsess away about ID cards and rubbish like that which reinforces their fantasies of control, rather than work out what they should actually do in a case like this. Sigh.

Re:Mobiles

[elgatozorbas]

Wouldn't the emergence communications system have its own frequencies?

Re:Mobiles

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Shouldn't calls to emergency servives always have a higher priority compared to normal calls?

They do, but that assumes there is spare capacity for anyone to use. In an event like this, the local choke points in the network will hit capacity near-instantly, meaning there's no space left to allocate to anyone, including the emergency services, because of all the people already making calls. The networks therefore reserve capacity on their systems to deal with this in the event of a major emergency.

If you do need to get through to someone in circumstances like this, it's a much better bet to use something like SMS. These tend to go over a control channel rather than the audio ones, so aren't usually blocked out.

Re:Mobiles

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I don't think this stuff is really that secret. Most major infrastructure and communications firms, including mobile phone operators, TV and radio networks, London Underground, the train operating companies, etc. have contingency plans to deal with this sort of eventuality. Most staff with a significant supervisory role at these organisations are necessarily aware of the emergency procedures.

There are people in government whose job is to make sure that these procedures are available if necessary, and that they co-ordinate effectively in the event of a major incident. I'm sure those people are as sad as anyone else that their plans were needed today, but looking at how quickly and effectively the emergency and travel services in and around London reacted, the emergency planners can be very proud this evening.

7 blasts now

[John Harrison]

It seems that there are two on buses and five in the subway.

FYI...

[Noryungi]

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.

Re:FYI...

[Chris_Jefferson]

Many commuters don't have a lot of choice, as at the moment there are no trains entering London (a very few are leaving). It is expected no trains will be arriving any time this afternoon, and probably at all today.

Re:FYI...

[hconnellan]

And those of us at the office in London have been warned not to go out the building. The canteen had seen its biggest single trading day all year.

Re:FYI...

[peterpi]

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.

Good to see it's business as usual in London then ;)

Mobile Phones ...

[thempstead]

... the BBC news site says the following on the problems people are having trying to contact people in London by mobile phone ...

"A spokesman for Vodafone said emergency services were being given priority access to the mobile phone network which was causing problems for other users."

t

The real bugger is...

[Guppy06]

Alright, it's fairly obvious that we're talking about terrorist attacks here, but what kind of terrorists? Rabid Islamists against the war in Iraq? Rabid anarchists against the G8 summit? Rabid Irish against anything English?

I realize that blaming the Irish may be like Spain blaming the ETA, but the timing suggests it could be aimed more at the G8 than the UK in specific.

Re: The real bugger is...

[Black Parrot]

> Alright, it's fairly obvious that we're talking about terrorist attacks here, but what kind of terrorists? Rabid Islamists against the war in Iraq? Rabid anarchists against the G8 summit? Rabid Irish against anything English? I realize that blaming the Irish may be like Spain blaming the ETA, but the timing suggests it could be aimed more at the G8 than the UK in specific.

Doesn't seem to match the traditional mode of anti-G8 violence.

I suspect it's international, and it probably follows the award of the 2012 Olympics to London as a "we can get you" message.

Re:The real bugger is...

[millia]

the french, upset at not getting the olympics? ;)

all condolences to our British friends; we're thinking of you this morning.
(I'm praying; to each his own.)

Re:The real bugger is...

[mykdavies]

This is obviously meant to coincide with G8 - you don't arrange something like this so quickly in response to London's surprise winning of the Olympics.

Given that it's
- a co-ordinated series of attacks on transport infrastructure
- there were no warnings
- there are reports of a suicide bomber on the bus
it looks fairly obvious that it's an Al-Qaeda-inspired attack based on the Madrid model.

Re:The real bugger is...

[SerpentMage]

The German news are saying it is Al-Qada, but in a new form. In the old days cells were formed and these people lived together and raised mayhem throughout the life of the cell. These days individuals come together as "specialist teams" and plan one attack. After the attack they disband.

The news casters were saying that it is a war tactic of the old Beduin where people would come out of the dust, attack and disappear into the dust. These "specialist teams" have specialist keywords and work on their own. In other words they develop unique behavior patterns for each attack making them nearly impossible to track.

What bugs me is that the G8 might have actually talked about African aid, farm subsidies, and global warming. At least that was the agenda by Blair. Now, well the terrorists are playing right into the hands of George Bush!

Re:The real bugger is...

[delta_avi_delta]

I realize that blaming the Irish may be like Spain blaming the ETA

No, blaming the Irish is not a bit like Spain blaming ETA - blaming the IRA would be. Way to paint an entire nation as rabid terrorists. Amadain

Re:The real bugger is...

[rxmd]

What bugs me is that the G8 might have actually talked about African aid, farm subsidies, and global warming. At least that was the agenda by Blair. Now, well the terrorists are playing right into the hands of George Bush!

This is not surprising at all. Terrorists aren't interested in world peace. You can observe the same thing in Palestine. As soon as there is even a remote hope for peace, a bomb goes off somewhere. As soon as everybody is happy, peaceful and content, the terrorist lose both their legitimacy and their recruitment environment.

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:The real bugger is...

[ScentCone]

Now, well the terrorists are playing right into the hands of George Bush!

Do you even hear yourself? If this attack, and the ones in Madrid, and Africa, on our naval vessel, and in Bali, and in New York and Washington had never happened, then we wouldn't have any issues in the first place. This only "plays" into "Bush's hands" in the sense that it demonstrates exactly what we're up against, and how important it is that we keep monsters like the people that did this in check. Several analysts are pointing out that London's fate here may in part be because it's now much harder for terrorists to operate in the U.S.

I really feel for the poor bastards directly impacted by this in London, but it's really an attack on everything democratic, civilized, and open. If you can't see that, then you are playing right into Al Queda's hands.

Re:The real bugger is...

[prionic6]

"Now, well the terrorists are playing right into the hands of George Bush!"

The question: Who is playing into whose hands?

Re:The real bugger is...

[Guppy06]

1. I made a point of using the word "rabid" very liberally in the first paragraph. Either this wasn't enough for you or you flat-out didn't read that paragraph.
2. There is no "IRA" any more. There are a gajillion of organizations that all claim to be its successors, and they all hate each other almost as much as they hate the English ("Judean People's Front... HAH!"). About the only thing they have in common is that they're rabidly Irish (hence the use of the word "rabid," bringing me back to the previous point)

Re:The real bugger is...

[Guppy06]

"As soon as there is even a remote hope for peace, a bomb goes off somewhere."

That's how warfare works even when you're not talking terrorism. Wars are generally at their worst after the announcement of a future cease-fire. Everybody wants to make a land/resource-grab before the fighting is scheduled the end since posession is 9/10 of the law/diplomacy/warfare/etc.

Re:The real bugger is...

[Xiver]

What bugs me is that the G8 might have actually talked about African aid, farm subsidies, and global warming. At least that was the agenda by Blair. Now, well the terrorists are playing right into the hands of George Bush!

I'm pretty sure that Al-Qada [sic] doesn't really care much about global warming, African aid, or farm subsidies.

Re:The real bugger is...

[SerpentMage]

What I was trying to highlight is that terrorism is a very important issue. However, there are many other important issues eg Aid to Africa, Farm subsidies and Global Warming. This terrorist attack will forcibly put all of these other important issues on the sidelines. This is not good news!

Now about how its harder for terrorists to operate in the US. One has to be very very careful with those types of words. What the German news were pointing out is that the terrorists have created "cell on demand". Cells that come together for the attack, and disperse. The indivduals may not even communicate or live with each other. They operate with one mission in mind and exchange very little communication. In other words you need to track individuals. Tough, very tough!

Re:The real bugger is...

[I confirm I'm not a]

At the risk of getting all serious, it wouldn't be the first terrorist attack orchestrated by France against an allied country... Though I seriously doubt this outrage was caused by French commandos.

Re:The real bugger is...

[everphilski]

Now, well the terrorists are playing right into the hands of George Bush!

You mean... it shows he's right? There is a terrorist threat? He's not just a crazy republican? *sigh*

I think you will be suprised. G8 will do what its supposed to do. There will be some interruption - this is a major event - but I think overall a lot will be done. Don't discredit them over a single terrorist act.

-everphilski-

Re:The real bugger is...

[NoneExpected]

This is not about "George Bush", it is about a fanatical group who want to impose their will without any of the usual niceties, such as a democratic process.

Tell me want is your plan? Roll over?

Get your head out of your butt and realize if these people win your ability to make stupid statements could quite likely get you flogged in the town square.

Re: The real bugger is...

[SilentSheep]

To attack within 16 hours of the announcement, on this scale?? I don't think thats likely this would take many months of planning.

Re:The real bugger is...

[SerpentMage]

We all know that there is a terrorist threat. The problem is that often when I hear George Bush talk it sounds like a broken record and everything relates back to terrorism.

So, yes, terrorism is a threat. But so is climate change, aid to africa, and farm subsidies. The reason why I am a bit disheartened is because the Live8 summit created a momentum where the world population for a quick moment looked at what the world leaders were doing.

Re:The real bugger is...

[erikkemperman]

Hate to burst your bubble, friend, but you're wrong.

This does play into neocon hands -- in fact, the manifesto of the Project for the New American Century (written well before 911 by Cheney and Wolfowitz among others) states they would need "a new Pearl Harbour" which they could then use to legitimize the forceful maintainance of American hegemony.

The fact you're not aware if this is completely in line with another neocon (Straussian) idea; it is perfectly allright to lie to the public "for their own good", the goal justify the means.

You should really look for a torrent of "The Power of Nightmares", a 3-part BBC documentary, if you really want to understand how the neocons and the radical islamists are dependent on one another.

Re:The real bugger is...

[ScentCone]

Tough, very tough!

It is indeed. That we haven't had a similar attack in the US yet is part luck, part vigilance, and partly, no doubt, the bad guys biding their time until they can rig up something dramatic enough to really stoke up Al Jazeera when it happens.

I'm certain it's going to happen in the US again, just like it will probably happen in Italy, Denmark, and elsewhere.

As for how (or whether) this distracts from the G8 agenda... remember: it's exactly the G8 agenda that these guys hate. They're not distracting from the agenda, they're showing their disdain for it. They hate the notion of wealthy western countries using their resources to lift poor countries up and back democracy. These punks only thrive where people are miserable and vulnerable to their medieval way of looking at things.

Re:The real bugger is...

[farnett]

What exactly does 'Rabidly Irish' mean?

Do you mean rabidly nationalist?

I've heard of the latter, but not the former.

Explain please.

Re:The real bugger is...

[SerpentMage]

Send me an email and I will tell you what I think we should do! I just don't want to post it publically.

Re:The real bugger is...

[markhb]

My (Irish-American Catholic) family, all the way back in the '70s, had reached a general consensus that the IRA had a serious lack of genuine Irish patriots and a serious surplus of rabble who just liked blowing things up. That's one reason why I tend to doubt Gerry Adams' ability to follow through on Good Friday... it's not like he can have the Republican thugs arrested for disobeying orders.

Re:The real bugger is...

[NeedleSurfer]

the guy wore blue
the nun wears blue
the guy is a nun

A dog has four leg
a cat has four leg
hence a cat is a dog

see that kind of dimwitted logic can lead to fun sentences

you could also have cosen

It happened in a city
This city has tall building
The terrorist used bombs ...

Re:The real bugger is...

[delta_avi_delta]

It's the "rabidly Irish" bit I'm taking specific offense at. You're not qualifying your statements with "terrorist" etc, you're just lumping everything as "Irish".

And before you try to give me a history of the splintering of the IRA, I'm Irish myself, in case you hadn't quite figured out, and from a border county to boot.

Re:The real bugger is...

[ScentCone]

... in fact, the manifesto of the Project for the New American Century ... states they would need "a new Pearl Harbour

Well, see, you're going to sound like much less of a kook if you don't just make stuff up. You can go right here and read their 'manifesto' all you want. You'll notice the complete lack of anything even vaguely like what you're talking about, either philosophically, stragecially, or tactically. I find particulary ironic that even as you describe another party as lying "to the people" for their own good, you're the one fabricating things to try to score a rhetorical point, hoping that your audience doesn't know how to use Google. Pretty insulting, and indicative of your condescending posture (which includes willingness to use nearly childish deceit in a transparent attempt to pursuade the intellectually lazy). If you want to talk about who is dependent on who, I'd suggest that we bring up the issue of which parties will seem completely irrelevent unless they can manufacture and nurse along the myth of some evil conspiracy against which they can bravely rebel. Or, we can focus on that actual evil acts of people who blow up civilians on trains, and think about what they represent.

Re:The real bugger is...

[Scrameustache]

you don't arrange something like this so quickly in response to London's surprise winning of the Olympics.


Well, they had all those unused celebratory fireworks left over from the olympics announcement...

But sillyness aside, the G8 is the first thing I thought of.

Re:The real bugger is...

[glesga_kiss]

really feel for the poor bastards directly impacted by this in London, but it's really an attack on everything democratic, civilized, and open.

NO IT ISN'T!! How hard is this to grasp? They hate us because of what we have done to their countries for the past 100 years or so. Go get a history book. "Hating freedom", democracy and our way of life has NOTHING to do with anything here. The "freedom" gambit is just a tried & tested way of getting the western public on-side, as freedom is a core belief in our society. Again, may I refer you to that history book, countless examples. Please try to be less of a sheep next year.

Re:The real bugger is...

[NeedleSurfer]

Is there anyone who hasn't thought about this being yet another Twin Tower setup. Those events seems to help the american cause so much all the time its becoming hard to not think about it that way...

Re:The real bugger is...

[millia]

No, I didn't. Interesting. I meant it in the context of using religious freedom as you see fit. I happen to pray; others may not.

I most certainly did not mean it in the context of victims.

This may be responding to a troll, but I wanted to be sure nobody was confused. Tis a shocking thing that has happened.

Re:The real bugger is...

[ScentCone]

Tell you what. Just read some of Al Queda's own press material. They explicitly refer to democracy as "evil," and refer to elections (such as those that most of the people in Iraq vigorously embraced) as contrary to Islam - making anyone who participates in them a heretic and worthy of death, blah blah.

Of course this is not the view of the average person in that part of the world. It's the mantra of the crazies that are working for groups like Al Queda, and it's the rhetoric they use to justify slaughtering civilians. Do you really think that foreigners (from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia) killing young, native Iraqi police recruits or health care workers in Iraq is about what "we" have done to "them" for the last 100 years? They are not preaching self-determination for the people in the Arab world. They are preaching the viritues of a thuggish, mysogonistic theocracy that kills women for sending their daughters school (lest they learn to think on their own). See the policies of those fine fellows and Al Queda supporters, the Taliban, for some details on how they think humanity should carry on, day to day. That philosophy is entirely antithetical to liberty, democracy, and an open culture. Freedom isn't a "gambit," it's the best way for people to live. Slaughtering people that stand up for it requires no further commentary, as it's plain what those thugs want: chaos, and a brutal environment in which their medeival way of life can come back from the grave. What they want are sheep, and sure as hell not people (including women! gasp!) who flock to the polls to elect their own government.

Re:The real bugger is...

[Guppy06]

I was trying to equate "rabid" with "terrorist." I'm sure if I had actually used the t-word there'd be somebody else chiming in to tell me that they're really "freedom fighters" bombing random English civillians for the sake of Ulster independence. So long as some people continue to insist that the line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is a matter of opinion, the only way to communicate the idea clearly is to try to describe them in a way that includes both definitions.

I cold have said "rabidly Irish republican," but that's not entirely true, especially since many of them seem to point at Dublin and say "we want a republic, just not that republic." Republicanism seems to be used as a means to an end, something to contrast with the British crown.

I could have said "rabidly Irish nationalist," but it seems they're more interested in a nation that only exists in their mind. The UK is the more immediate enemy in their mind, but some of them also oppose the government in Dublin as a puppet state.

Really, the only thing they seem to fall back on to support their argument of "I'm right, you're wrong" is that they were born on Island A instead of Island B. They blow people up because they're Irish and the victims aren't (if only in the minds of the bombers). They're Irish and they're being hydrophobic about it.

Re:The real bugger is...

[erikkemperman]

Well, see, you're going to sound like much less of a kook if you don't just make stuff up. You can go right here and read their 'manifesto' all you want. You'll notice the complete lack of anything even vaguely like what you're talking about, either philosophically, stragecially, or tactically.

Touche. I made an honest mistake there -- the "Pearl Harbour" quote is not from the manifesto but from p51 of the report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (2000) as you can see here.

That said, I never meant to insult anyone, too bad you took it that way (which you make clear in the rest of your post.) I want to discuss the facts -- but not to limit myself only to "their" evil. It goes both ways.

Re:The real bugger is...

[rbarreira]

Alright, it's fairly obvious that we're talking about terrorist attacks here, but what kind of terrorists?

IMHO - the kind of terrorists who already knew they were eventually going to attack the UK. USA was first, then was Spain, now it's the UK. People already knew this would happen!

I just hope my country isn't the next one... :(

Re:The real bugger is...

[perly-king-69]

>>>Well, see, you're going to sound like much less of a kook if you don't just make stuff up. You can go right here and read their 'manifesto' all you want. Yes, but it does actually say in the manifesto that to be the dominant world force the US needs to bulk up their 'defence' capabilities and to justify that something like a new Pearl Harbour. Also it makes th e case for maintaining a strong presence in the Middle East, irrespective of whether Saddam Hussein/Iraq needs to be policed as it's a strategically important region.

Re:The real bugger is...

[Carnil]

I also think the best chances are that the G8 reunion is the motivation for this attack, but OTOH, having a team ready in all the candidate cities and activating just the one in the winner city would be a very impressive demonstration of power from Al Qaeda.

Re:The real bugger is...

[benzapp]

Tell you what. Just read some of Al Queda's own press material. They explicitly refer to democracy as "evil," and refer to elections (such as those that most of the people in Iraq vigorously embraced) as contrary to Islam - making anyone who participates in them a heretic and worthy of death, blah blah.

This is the real issue of this entire battle, a battle that goes back to the ancient rivalry between Athens, Sparta, and Persia.

Democracy is not the end all be all of human civilization. Time and again democracy has failed because the majority of people are incapable of deciding what path produces a lasting civilization.

There are those who believe that the future should not be decided by a popularity contest, and that certain ideals, virtues, and standards remain constant throughout the ages.

History is on the side of those who believe democracy is a failure. Your cavalier disregard of this fact exemplifies how you are the one subject to dominant propaganda of our modern age.

See you at the front.

Re:The real bugger is...

[glesga_kiss]

They explicitly refer to democracy as "evil," and refer to elections (such as those that most of the people in Iraq vigorously embraced) as contrary to Islam - making anyone who participates in them a heretic and worthy of death, blah blah.

I must have missed that meeting then. They did denounce the elections in Iraq, mostly because the candidates were all pre-selected for US puppet government approval. Provided the oil flows, anyone is valid. These people do not want Iraq to become a third-world satelite state of the US, which is basically what's happening. All of the head people so far have been former oil industry workers.

Perhaps you are confusing Al Qaida with the fundamentalists who run Saudi and Iran? Just because they have beards and are followers of the same base religion, it doesn't mean they have the same aims and beliefs. Contrast the likes of Jerry Fallwell with any sane Christian out there. Is it fair to tar all Christians with the same gay-hating "AIDS is a blessing from God" brush? I think not!

Re:The real bugger is...

[ScentCone]

That "Peal Harbor" comment is meaningless without some context. The section of the document in question is talking about the obvious need to alter the US military's equipment, budget, training, operations... essentially everything. With the Cold War over, and the threat of any other large army marching, literally, upon allied interests (with the possible exception of China), untold billions of defense dollars now need to spent on completely different priorities. This was true back in 2000, and it's even more true now.

The document you're quoting says that this change has to take place in order to allow the US military to retain its role of being superior to any threat it has to contend with. If the military's attitude were any different, you'd have to wonder who was running the show. The document suggests that the "process of transformation" into a more efficient and appropriate form "is going to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Nobody can read into this some dark design to cause or embrace such an event. The comment reads like any other written by anyone with any sense of history. Large, exepensive projects run by governments take a long time, unless some sense of urgency changes the priorities. Pearl Harbor was one such. Earthquakes in large west coast cities are another example (causing a huge change in standards, emergency readiness, building codes, etc). Our space program in the 1960's only got the attention and funding it deserved (perhaps even more so) because of the Soviet space program's obvious progress (Sputnik, etc). Saying that an inevitable and appropriate reconfiguration of our military is going to be accelerated if some catastrophic defense-related event takes place is, well, stating the obvious.

A more interesting line of inquiry might involve wondering why such changes weren't accelerated earlier (say, during the Clinton administration) when we had our naval vessel attacked, watched our embassies attacked, saw under-manned special forces in Somalia attacked, and watched entities like the Taliban taking over places like Afghanistan. Obviously, for the congress (which actually controls the purse strings), those incremental things weren't catalytic enough. So, the author of the document you quote was exactly correct: people don't wake up and re-evaluate how they're preparing for some things until they get a scare. Ask anyone in a neighborhood that's just had a house fire how many of them are checking or replacing smoke detectors, or lining up new insurance and household escape plans for their kids. Ask the people in Indonesia or Sri Lanka how many of them have now (post-tsunami) altered their ideas about where it's reasonable to build cities of wooden huts on the beach. It's not like the concept of that risk wasn't there - it was. Just like the risk of large-scale terrorism was plainly obvious before we geared up to do anything about after 9-11.

Re:The real bugger is...

[gg3po]

Do you have any evidence of this? I'd be interested to examine it.

Re:The real bugger is...

[ScentCone]

I must have missed that meeting then. They did denounce the elections in Iraq...

Sure, they denounced that election. But only as a sub-set of democracy in general. Here is the quote from the man himself, Bin Laden's head head-remover in Iraq:

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," said the speaker, who identified himself as Zarqawi. "Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it."

Righto, there you have it. You might also read this Washington Post piece by Fawaz A. Gerges, wherein he discusses the Al Queda position that "democracy is heresy itself." And quote's Bin Laden's take on the new Iraqi provisional constitution, which he says is by its nature, heretical. It's nature, by the way, calls for equality, representative government, freedom of speech... you know, all of those heresies that we (and the newly bloodied UK) also stand for.

All of the head people so far have been former oil industry workers.

Really? Let's see. How about their new Foreign Affairs Minister? Just picked one at random. Point is, even though he hasn't had anything to do with the oil industry, that other than being part of Saddam's military thugocracy, there wasn't much industry in Iraq, so most people with any social clout amount the local establishment/society there are going to have at least some connection to what amounts to the national industry. Pretty hard to avoid. And, since oil revenue is about the only thing (other than the charity of other nations) that will bring Iraq up out the crumbling infrastructure they inherited from Saddam (not counting the palaces he built with skimmed-off "food" money), it's not like it's a bad thing for people who know that business to be involved in the running of a country that depends upon that business.

Perhaps you are confusing Al Qaida with the fundamentalists who run Saudi and Iran?

Um, most of the Al Queda hierarchy is Saudi, or has received a lot of their cash from them. Bin Laden, of course - the founder of the group - is Saudi.

Contrast the likes of Jerry Fallwell with any sane Christian out there. Is it fair to tar all Christians with the same gay-hating "AIDS is a blessing from God" brush? I think not!

Hmmm. Probably not. But it's also reasonable for those very same Christians to be the most vocal people in showing how Falwell is wrong. Likewise, for all the talk of how peaceful most Muslims are, it's Muslims that should be completely non-stop shouting down the extremist members of their culture or explaining over and over how they are not good Muslims. Instead, you get Al Jazeera treating these jerks like heros, and much of the Muslim world tuning in there for their news. You don't see the major western news outlets talking about how wise and brave Falwell is - he's mostly the subject of jokes. But Bin Laden, or his buddies like Zarqawi, are help up as examples of righteousness in the popular Islamic media. To the extent that decent Muslims don't shun and boycott that sort of nonsense, it's pretty hard indeed to separate what you'd hope were just some violent extremists in the minority from the larger majority. But they don't even separate themselves, let alone demonstrate why the rest of the world should think of them that way.

Re:The real bugger is...

[matt4077]

What bugs me is that the G8 might have actually talked about African aid, farm subsidies, and global warming. At least that was the agenda by Blair. Now, well the terrorists are playing right into the hands of George Bush!

Please don't forget, that in this instance GWB was actually on the reasonable side in at least two of those three points: just like Blair, Bush opposes farm subsidies. And the canceling of 3. world debt decided a few weeks ago was also an american initiative. Concerning global warming, it even looked as if GWB might finally accept the relevant facts.

Re:The real bugger is...

[ScentCone]

Democracy is not the end all be all of human civilization

It is if you don't want to live as a slave.

Time and again democracy has failed because the majority of people are incapable of deciding what path produces a lasting civilization.

Time and time again? Representative democracy in the form that is currently working so well is a compartively new invention. Fuedal (and similar) societies have been around for thousands of years, and countless regimes/civilizations have risen and fallen into total oblivion without any sign of democracy. Over those thousands of years, it's the monarchies that have had to adapt to democracy or fail. The tyrannical, totalitarian states are the same. Most have fallen, or will. But the last two centuries are when democracy's really been given a chance to work. No surprise that the most prosperous countries in the world work well with that system, and that countries, such as in Eastern Europe that have just thrown off non-democractic regimes, are embracing elected representatives as ideal form of government.

There are those who believe that the future should not be decided by a popularity contest

Right. Royal families and fuedal contests are definately on the way out.

that certain ideals, virtues, and standards remain constant throughout the ages.

Yup: like democracy. Specifically, self determination as expressed thereby.

History is on the side of those who believe democracy is a failure. Your cavalier disregard of this fact exemplifies how you are the one subject to dominant propaganda of our modern age.

No, history if filled with failed monarchies, fuedal societies, and most recently with failed oppressive communinist tyrannies. It's actually your cavalier disregard for the failure of every other form of government for the last several thousand years that is so striking. Read some history! Look around you!

Re:The real bugger is...

[mcc]

China and Vladmir Putin, backing democracy?

You think that's what G8 wants?

Re:The real bugger is...

[Baorc]

What a karma whore you are with your sig!

Re:The real bugger is...

[glesga_kiss]

OK, let the humble pie eating commence. I guess what I'm really pissed off about is the way Bush & co claim that the hatred of freedom and democracy led to 9-11. That makes me really angry as it is the policies of his father and the arms industry that they are so intertwinned with that led to the whole problem. Todays attacks would not have happened if the UK was not involved in Iraq, and that sickens me. They've already started the "they hate freedom" bullshit. I wonder if any reporters will have the gall to ask Mr Blair if he feels guilty about that. Probably not, as it's a career ender WRT getting further interviews!! ;-)

It wasn't so much the Iraqis that are now getting appointed (thanks to the elections) that have the oil ties. It's the people that were appointed in the interim period that have conflicts of interest. Hell, even Bush's envrionmental guy is a former oil insider!

Saudi & Al Qaida, yes, most are Saudi but they are against the current dictatorship there. Officially, the Bin Laden family have cut all ties, but I'm not convinced on that. My point there was basically that people tend to see all Islamic folk in the same light.

Al Jazeera isn't what you think it is. I don't believe that they hold terrorism to be good, they simply show the videos they are sent. The BBC and CNN are no different. I'd bet they have similar views on our media. Which does glorify our wars by the way, so in that respect they would not be far from the truth. The problem is, each side only sees the extremists on the other side. I don't know what the chat is in the workplaces in the middle east, but I would seriously doubt that the general consensus is that Bin Laden is a nice guy. I'm not so sure if they would have any exposure to the moderates in our country. Hell, there hasn't been much on OUR media over the past five years to begin with!

Re:The real bugger is...

[xstein]

This is not surprising at all. Terrorists aren't interested in world peace. You can observe the same thing in Palestine. As soon as there is even a remote hope for peace, a bomb goes off somewhere. As soon as everybody is happy, peaceful and content, the terrorist lose both their legitimacy and their recruitment environment.

Excuse me? Excuse me? Terrorists aren't interested in peace? You make the mistake of equating terrorists with serial killers. Many are extremely educated, family men, and are fighting for a cause. This isn't about causing mass terror and disruption to the Western world out of spite or pleasure. They are fighting for a cause, and believe that this is the best way to achieve their goals, given they have put a fairly low premium on the life of a Western civilian.

This is about 2 different cultures that have been unable to co-exist because of imperialism on the part of the Americans. There are problems in the Middle East, and these need to be resolved by those involved--which, I'm sorry, is NOT the United States, despite oil interests. They want their holy lands to be left untainted by Western militia (or militia of any kind), cultures respected, and then for their people (and by extension people elsewhere) to live in peace. This isn't about racism, religious cleansing, or insanity. Their cultures are different to Western cultures--women may not have the same role in society, their religion may be of greater importance in their lives, whatever, I don't know enough about it to comment, but the point is it's nobody's business but their own. Respect that, and leave them the hell alone. They don't go over to the US insisting American women cover themselves up, nor complain about divorce.

I believe there exist moral absolutes, for example, that an innocent man should not be murdered. If crimes against humanity are being committed, the correct body to step in is the UN. Problems in Israel/Palestine arise because both parties believe land belongs to them, similarly in Kashmir. Allow the UN to help facilitate talks, but ultimately it has to be them making the decisions.

If the US puts as much value into American life as they claim, this is what they should do. First, spend money researching and developing alternate fuel sources so as not to rely on Middle Eastern oil anymore. Second, try and have your forces clean up as much as they can Out There and then get the hell out of there. Do not continue to disrespect their cultures by populating their cities and holy lands with your uniformed military. Third, leave the buggers alone. Fourth, fix the fucking United Nations. The UN is in need of a vast reform--it's just not working. Remove the corruption, lessen the bureaucracy, and only get involved when necessary, which is NOT when the US runs out of oil. Fifth, teach your children about world cultures, tolerance, and how to respect cultures you do not understand.

If you can't figure out the alternate fuel source thing, call up Canada--I hear they have heaps.

Finally, let me say I do not in any way condone the actions of terrorists and believe nothing is worth killing for. But this is not about retaliation, revenge, or retribution. This is about peace.

Re:The real bugger is...

[mvdwege]

They're Irish and they're being hydrophobic about it.

They're afraid of water? That would fit with the common Irish stereotype of them preferring whiskey or stout, but I don't think you meant that.

Of course with a nick like Guppy06 you would have water on the brain.

Mart

Re:The real bugger is...

[charyou-tree]

This post is so wrong, in so many ways, I hardly know where to begin. Pardon me for skipping most of it.

Excuse me? Excuse me? Terrorists aren't interested in peace? You make the mistake of equating terrorists with serial killers. Many are extremely educated, family men, and are fighting for a cause.

No, they're interested in influencing the political will of other people through the application of violence in shocking and unpredictable ways. Peace is the last thing they want. Are they educated? Some are. The average suicide bomber certainly isn't.

This is about 2 different cultures that have been unable to co-exist because of imperialism on the part of the Americans.

No. It's about evil men who manipulate Islamic extremists to retain or expand their own personal power and privilege.

They want their holy lands to be left untainted by Western militia (or militia of any kind), cultures respected, and then for their people (and by extension people elsewhere) to live in peace.

No. They want us out of their lands so they can continue to oppress and take advantage of their people. If you think the Taliban only wanted peace, you're an ignorant fool. They lived lives of luxury built off the frightened toil of their subjects.

Their cultures are different to Western cultures [...]

You're absolutely right - their theocratic authoritarian culture is inferior to western secular democracy.

[...] whatever, I don't know enough about it to comment [...]

Clearly.

[...] but the point is it's nobody's business but their own. Respect that, and leave them the hell alone. They don't go over to the US insisting American women cover themselves up, nor complain about divorce.

The hell they don't! Have you actually listened to anything Bin Laden's been saying about the US? He's been attacking our decadent, blasphemous culture since day one.

I believe there exist moral absolutes [...]

Yet in the previous breath you're arguing that their culture is just 'different' and that we should mind our own business.

Do not continue to disrespect their cultures [...]

But I don't respect their culture. It's a black hole of oppression, where dissenting thought is crushed, where female human beings are treated like property, where savage tribal feuds take the place of law.

The culture of fundamentalist Muslims is inferior to the free, open, secular democracy I live in. I won't pretend otherwise, and neither should you.

[...] [it's the UN's job] [...] [fix the UN] [...]

The UN declined to do anything about Saddam. Empty promises and empty threats make an empty organization. Fix the UN? Sure, good idea. Trust it or count on it today? No.

Fifth, teach your children about world cultures, tolerance, and how to respect cultures you do not understand.

Better yet, teach your children that respect for other cultures should not extend to politically-correct "respect" that condones the behavior or beliefs of these people. I'll put it in bold one more time: theocratic totalitarianism is inferior to western secular democracy. There's no culture there worth respecting, or negotiating with. We must not tolerate their dishonest, corrupt, hypocritical fundamentalism especially in light of their apparent determination to kill all infidels. I don't believe we can change them - just kill the extremists while we extend a hand to the moderates.

If you can't figure out the alternate fuel source thing, call up Canada--I hear they have heaps.

What are you talking about? Are you psychotic? I don't know what you think you're hearing, but Canada doesn't have any bottomless pit of utopia-green energy that they're not sharing.

I [...] believe nothing is worth killing for. But this is not about retaliation, revenge, or retribution

Seven explosions

[bobbis.u]

Apparently it is actually 7 explosions - six on the tube, 1 on a bus. Whole tube network and all buses stopped.

The mobile network gives priority to specially enabled phones for use by the emergency services in circumstances such as this.

I think I can speak for everyone when i say

FUCK THE TERRORISTS

Re:Seven explosions

[Max Romantschuk]

I think I can speak for everyone when i say

FUCK THE TERRORISTS

I have to say I agree, there's really no better way to put it.

What I personally will never, ever get around is how someone can become so sick that they believe they are doing the Right Thing when participating in terror acts such as this. Things like this always have me wondering if humanity will end up distroying itself sooner rather than later. Yet I hope that world peace can some day be a reality. Without hope there's not much left, is there?

Re:Seven explosions

[vandan]

Yes I heard that the Israelis knew about the attacks prior to them happening. Apparently they've been behind a lot of the bombings in Iraq that have been blamed on 'insurgents'.

Whether the Israelis, CIA, MI5, or simply some pissed off Arabs ( and God knows they've got a lot to be pissed off about these days ), nothing would surprise me.

Re:Seven explosions

[dalutong]

You mean like samuel adams when he tarred and feathered the british loyalists (civilians) and paraded them around in public?

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

[bobbis.u]

At the end of the day, deliberately attacking civilians is terrorism and it is barbaric, whatever the circumstances.

If you have a gripe against the British government or establishment, then you should target the attack at them (even if there will be collateral damage to civilians).

This is where comparisons between Islamic terrorist attacks and the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan always break down. All the recent terrorist attacks have been aimed at civilians (many of whom protested against the war anyway). That is precisely what makes them "terrorist" in my eyes. [No matter what some people say, the UK/US forces have done everything possible to avoid civilians casualties.]

If they were legitimate "freedom fighters", they would be attacking the British military or government.

Re:Seven explosions

[ylikone]

Hmmm... all is fair in love and war?

Re:Seven explosions

[NeedleSurfer]

I don't know, ask the 10s of thousands of dead people in Irak and Afganistan?

Don't they have the right to defend themsleves, because they don't do it with planes and hi-tech gear its less legitimate to defend and retaliate?

Terrorism is just a bad name for rebellion, wether you agree with the rebellion or not, if the rebels win they become revolutionaires if they lose they were terrorist, but I let you guess who looks like the empire and who looks like the rebels in this.

Re:Seven explosions

[stwrtpj]

What I personally will never, ever get around is how someone can become so sick that they believe they are doing the Right Thing when participating in terror acts such as this.

I certainly agree with this statement. I'm never in favor of killing innocents to prove a point. That said, however, the reality of the situation is that there are people motivated about their cause enough to do such a thing. To simply have the attitude "Fuck the terrorists" as the parent said, is too simplistic an approach towards solving the problem. We have to first understand WHY terrorists do what they do, which means asking hard questions about the policies and past actions of various nations.

Re:Seven explosions

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

"Don't they have the right to defend themsleves, because they don't do it with planes and hi-tech gear its less legitimate to defend and retaliate? " Wow, I mean wow. That is possibly the most stupid thing I have ever seen on slashdot. I can assume you would think if Britain chose to defend itself with a small tactical nuke in Mecca you would support that right? B/c the illegitimacy doesn't come from the means(ie bombs) but what they(the terrorists) chose to blow up.

Re:Seven explosions

[dalutong]

Good point. I just wish people wouldn't think that their country's past was sqeaky-clean.

Also, at some point the civilians hold some responsibility. White civilians in the south that supported the racist government, for instance, in the U.S.

but, again, i don't support civilian death regardless of your reasons. i do support public and governmental pressure to force our governments act justly, however, regardless of the political cost. (and that, of course, means that i support awareness programs that make the public understand the political games and also understand things from a less myopic perspective.)

Re:Seven explosions

[Foxyloficus]

Violence begets violence, that's how terrorist movements generally get started, they don't appear out of a vacuum. Usually starts when some state or government abuses/oppresses/kills people. Some are directly effected (lose family members etc) and others are just made damn angry and filled with hatred for those associated with their oppressors. The more unstable of these are then ripe for recruitment into terrorist movements. Happens all the time, every empire or occupier has to deal with resistence/terrorism. And it's always the innocent who pay the price. British forces were originally sent to Northern Ireland to protect Irish Catholics from violent Unionist/Protestant groups (who thought their privileged status in Northern Ireland was threatened (it was). But they were then used to oppress and kill Irish Catholics (e.g. Bloody Sunday). This resulted in the Catholics turning against the British Army (which was originally welcomed) and spawned/invigorated terrorist groups like the Provisional IRA who then went on to commit various horrible atrocities against the British.

Re:Seven explosions

[rsax]

What I personally will never, ever get around is how someone can become so sick that they believe they are doing the Right Thing when participating in terror acts such as this.

I remember watching bombs exploding in Iraq and couldn't help but imagine mothers, fathers, sons and daughters thinking the same thing. Did the "Coalition of the Willing" pilots think they were "doing the right thing" or just following orders?

Lesson to be learned here: what we describe as terrorism (and this was terrorist activity) is justified in someone else's mind. Question is how do you deal with it? Do we continue bombing entire countries, thereby creating new terrorist recruiting grounds?

Re:Seven explosions

[bmgoau]

World peace is infact a possibility:

Quoteing Wikipedia

"The study found 198 wars between non-democracies, 155 wars between democracies and non-democracies, and 0 wars between democracies."

Hopefully, eventually, whether or not every nation becomes a democracy i forsee two possible outcomes:

1. The evil of the world will distroy itself leaving only peace

2. Evil regimes and way of thinking will stagnate and die from either lack of support, funding, economy, realisation or the force of peaceful nations.

This of course will take considerable time, but if one looks deeply into the progress the UN has made, without bias, and the progress of western nations if somewhat raising living standards to the best of their ability in commonly warlord governed states where charity is often absorbed, you will see progress is being made.

The world will not destory itself, and i regret to say, but terrorist attacks on western nations only unites us under a common goal and the thurtherment of peace.

It's a sad realisty, but unless the terrorists can deafeat democracy and freedom in one go, then every time they strike on relativly small scales they will only strength free peoples resolve.

Re:Seven explosions

[pyota]

imo there is no difference between terrorism and war. i've never understood this term 'innocent people' ... as distinguished from whom exactly?killing is killing and people are people. the western world smacks of hipocrisy when it assumes the moral highground after how many have been killed in iraq? let's put this terrorism thing in perspective: 3000 people died on 9/11. otoh 900 people get HIV every day .. how come i never hear about that???

Re:Seven explosions

[Dread_ed]

What I personally will never, ever get around is how someone can become so sick...

I feel the same way with respect to this. In addition, the thing that exacerbates the problem is when people begin to examine the victims to see what they were doing in order to "deserve" this type of attack.

It is equivalent to looking at a dead rape victim and telling her family, "Well, she should not have worn a pretty dress today. She was asking to get raped, and by God she deserved it! That poor rapist had no other choice than to do what he did."

The people of London had absolutely nothing to do with anything that could even remotely justify this kind of action. Those who will come after and point fingers at anyone other than those who comitted these acts are truly sickening in their mental monstrousness. They misunderstand justice at a fundamental level.

The worst part is that there may not be many terrorists in the world, but there are literally millions of people who think the terroists are justified in what they do.

Re:Seven explosions

[douceur]

Well said.

Re:Seven explosions

[atomic777]

Save up some of that anger. The government will be counting on it when they announce their latest expedition to a foreign land to pillage it of its resources so that we can maintain our lofty standard of living.

I don't approve of killing anywhere. But I also don't think it makes sense for us, in the west, to be outraged when our innocent civilians are killed, while innocent civilians are killed in our names on a daily basis, on a larger scale, in foreign lands. Are we so arrogant that we think our lives more valuable than theirs? Is an innocent Iraqi death less meaningful than a Briton?

This is why a free and independant media is so vital to a healthy society -- if we regularly saw just how many people die around the world as a result of our government's actions, perhaps we would vote differently, and perhaps the terrible tragedy today could have been avoided.

Re:Seven explosions

[douceur]

It is equivalent to looking at a dead rape victim and telling her family, "Well, she should not have worn a pretty dress today. She was asking to get raped, and by God she deserved it! That poor rapist had no other choice than to do what he did."

Yes, that would be a horrible thing to say. At the same time, it's naive to believe that certain women aren't more likely to be raped than others. No woman ever deserves to be raped or has it coming to her. However, there are times when you could say it wouldn't surprise you as much. Maybe it was the people she hung out, or maybe it was the way she dressed.

Walking down back alleys of Chicago late at night, you really are more likely to be mugged than if you're in your home in the country. Does that mean you deserved it? No, but you could have taken steps to prevent it.

Re:Seven explosions

[Snaller]

What I personally will never, ever get around is how someone can become so sick that they believe they are doing the Right Thing when participating in terror acts such as this.

Any soldier who kills will say the same as his government "This is not terror this is unfortunate but necessary." Regardless of what country or faction they come from.

Re:Seven explosions

[Max Romantschuk]

So where was your sense of moral outrage when the city of Fallujah was cordoned off and razed to the ground, civilians and all?

I was against the war in Iraq from the start. Refer to my blog archive, see the entry for the 20th of March 2003. Im against all wars, for that matter.

I suppose I should have listed all things I consider wrong in order to please you?

Re:Seven explosions

[dfenstrate]

Violence begets violence

The dead aren't particularly violent. So if you manage to kill a great deal of your enemies, you've made progress.

Naked force has solved more issues in the history of mankind than diplomacy ever will.

It is a fortunate artifact of nature that a more free a society is, the more capable of exerting violence it will be. (IE, the united states, european nations) It is simply the will to act that we lack at times.

Non-violence and passive resistince only work on a relatively moral enemy. Ghandis and Martin Luther Kings get killed in totalitarian societies before they even have the attention of two dozen people.

We are not fighting a moral enemy here. The only way to win is to kill their command structure and enough of their ranks so that they either cannot muster an attack, or they realize they are so far outclassed that any further action is pointless.

Re:Seven explosions

[Eric S. Smith]

if you manage to kill a great deal of your enemies, you've made progress.

s/progress/more enemies/

Or so it seems to many of us who don't go around spouting nonsense like:

It is a fortunate artifact of nature that a more free a society is, the more capable of exerting violence it will be.

I'm sorry to say that I have no idea how that's supposed to correspond to facts in the real world.

Re:Seven explosions

[spun]

The problem with groups like this is that they are decentralized and amorphous. Kill their command structure and the ranks move up into command. Kill the ranks and the back bench supporters move into the ranks. The harder you fight, the easier it is for them to recruit. To win on your terms we would have to wage a scorched earth campaign that involved killing every living thing in the region. Despite your laughable assertion to the contrary, free societies don't have the stomach for that kind of campaign.

Naked force never 'solves' issues. It provides a temporary solution while making the problem worse. Violence is not any more inherent to human nature than peace is. Both are learned responses to specific conditions. Violence does beget violence. Even if you could kill all of your enemy, and everyone that ever cared about you, you haven't lessened violence in the world. You have made a monster of yourself, and sanctioned the use of violence in everyone's eyes.

Non-violence and passive resistence actually bring out the morality in those capable of it. They do nothing against sociopaths and psychopaths, but those are very rare even in totalitarian leadership.

Re:Seven explosions

[dfenstrate]

...Or so it seems to many of us who don't go around spouting nonsense...

I'm sorry, did you miss the parts in history class where more free, western type nations had the biggest, baddest militaries first?

Do I really have to argue with you about wether or not westerners can slaughter the entire continent of africa, the middle east, many asian countries, etc, if we so choose?

Do I really have to argue with you about how societies that value property rights and self-criticism (in business, government, academics, religion,personally) can amass the wealth needed to afford the weapons we have? How scientific research towards things that make bigger, better weapons goes along alot smoother in said societies? That is the foturnate artifact of nature, and it seems pretty obvious to me.

Here's the real world for ya: WE (western nations) POSSESS THE CAPABILITY TO KILL EVERYONE THAT STANDS IN OUR WAY, with both nuclear and conventional methods. That we haven't already speaks volumes about our restraint. We fight with one hand behind our back.

Totalitarian, oppressive societies can often some years later copy what we produced half a century ago,(North Korea, Iran, etc) and the soviets made a decent showing of trying to keep up with the US, but in the end they collapsed in the effort. They all pale in comparison to what we (westerners) are capable of.

If you had bothered to think about it for even a minute, you might have realized what I was saying. Fortunately for those who follow, I have now explained it.

Re:Seven explosions

[cfulmer]

If you're talking about bombs being dropped from planes, we tried extraordinarily hard to only hit real targets -- there was no carpet-bombing of Baghdad, for example. There were some accidents, of course, but nothing approaching wholesale destruction. If you recall, shortly after the invasion, the Iraqi people were jubilant.

If you're talking about things like roadside bombs, marketplace bombs and the like, then your question is correct, but directed at the wrong side. If your theory is right then the Iraqi people will be opposing the terrorists, not joining them.

We are working to try to rebuild Iraq, not only from the destruction of the war, but also from the destruction caused by Saddam Hussein and from the destruction caused by the terrorists. The large majority of the people fighting us are foreigners, not Iraqis.

Regardless, the best thing that we can do now is to get the country stabilized, rebuild its infrastructure and then get out of the way.

Re:Seven explosions

[dfenstrate]

Non-violence and passive resistence actually bring out the morality in those capable of it. They do nothing against sociopaths and psychopaths

Sociopaths and psychopaths are exactly the type of people who carry out these terrorist attacks. There maybe a few ideolouges at the top who are fairly smart and capable (but still sociopathic), but suicide bombers are generally culled from the dregs of society, and people who bomb subways are definately sociopaths.

I know we don't have the stomach for a scorched earth campaign, and I'm not advocating turning all of the middle east into glass. There are plenty of good people there, I don't dispute that.

The people who fight us, budding government in Iraq, bomb iraqi policemen, and bomb london subways- they deserve no mercy or quarter. We need to have the stomach for hunting them down tirelessly.

Re:Seven explosions

[Foxyloficus]

Sounds like you are advocating genocide here! While genocide is an effective strategy assuming you have the will, resources, and the total lack of human decency required to do it, it kind of loses you the moral highground doesn't it? And I believe, the US and Britain, so far, are not yet totalitarian dictatorships, so unless they are willing to go the whole hog, i.e. become dictatorships and commit genocide, they have to fight in limited, but smart ways. Not just go smashing things up like a bull in a china shop. The British seem to understand this, they learned this through their experiences of occupying many countries over many years. I think (hope!) the US may be starting to learn this as well.

Re:Seven explosions

[Eric S. Smith]

...did you miss the parts in history class...

...where accidents of history were presented as inevitabilities? No, I was there, but I didn't necessarily buy it.

And you were missing all the diplomacy that's occurred in history when you decided to bold-face your groundless declaration about "naked force" and how it solves so many problems.

WE (western nations) POSSESS THE CAPABILITY TO KILL EVERYONE THAT STANDS IN OUR WAY, with both nuclear and conventional methods. That we haven't already speaks volumes about our restraint. We fight with one hand behind our back.

What speaks volumes is that you can carry on thus:

westerners can slaughter the entire continent of africa, the middle east, many asian countries, etc, if we so choose?

...as though this would ever be a desirable or advantageous course of action. "One hand behind our back?" If you can think of even one problem in the world today that would be solved by a good regional nuking, I can point to a problem that you don't understand.

Re:Seven explosions

[coflow]

FUCK THE TERRORISTS You do speak for me, but I have one problem with this statement. Terrorism is only a tactic. The real problem is Islamic extremism. And before I get flamed and yelled at and compared to Hitler, notice I said extremism, not Islam itself. This culture of death, hatred of the west, blaming Israel, the US, and Great Britain for all problems, the poor treatment of women, the lack of respect for individual rights, etc. has got to stop. I sincerely hope the Islamic world has a new generation of leaders up to the task of extinguishing this virulent brand of hatred. The way things are going, it looks like nothing short of a war is going to result, and I'm not talking about war as in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Croatia, I mean more like Europe in the early 20th century.

Re:Seven explosions

[geekee]

"Terrorism is just a bad name for rebellion, wether you agree with the rebellion or not, if the rebels win they become revolutionaires if they lose they were terrorist, but I let you guess who looks like the empire and who looks like the rebels in this."

No terrorism is a subset of rebellion that uses the tactic of killing cililians on purpose to create fear. Not all rebellions involve this tactic.

Re:Seven explosions

[maggern]

"Rules" and ideas of what terrorism is, may be hard to define or agree about. I have a different approach: Focus on the consequences.

Laws, rules, principles and ideas are really nothing more than things we think about, not anything real you can touch. You can however, touch concequences, because they're real.

(I'll use children as an example of victim).
If children die because of bombing, it's terror. If children die because of soldiers shooting, it's terror. If children die because an american blocade of the country blocks medicine to enter, it's terror. If children die, because there's a shortage of doctors because of war, it's terror, and the people behind the war is responsible.

Mainly, the method of killing is not so interesting, it's the fact the people actually die that's important.

...and now the discussion begins about what kind of victims that should be included in "terror-victim" group. e.g. should civilians that're driven into defending themselfes count? etc.

PS: What about concequences that lead to death that couldn't been foreseen? Hint: What's the concequence?

Maggern - Norway

Re:Seven explosions

[hesiod]

> I'm sorry, did you miss the parts in history class where more free, western type nations had the biggest, baddest militaries first?

Was the Roman Empire considered "free?"

Re:News just in....

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the British considered Americans terrorists ~230 years ago.

Anti-Callousness

[Valacosa]

I think I'll hold off on the jokes until I know whether or not this is serious. I'd hope most people would do the same.

Re:Anti-Callousness

[Scoria]

Humor often serves as a pacifier for those who might otherwise panic. We turn to humor in order to avoid a descension into hysteria.

That said, it's often difficult to separate distasteful from tasteful humor in a time of crisis, especially on a "written" medium such as this one.

Re:Anti-Callousness

[m50d]

No way. If we can't laugh, the terrorists have already won.

I'm betting it was a those damn frenchies sore at losing the olympic bid.

Mobile phone net

[Sallust]

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.

Re:Mobile phone net

[Anonymous Coward]

No it hasn't.
Please don't repeat this sort of bullshit, and moderators - please don't pander to this knd of idiocy

Re:Mobile phone net

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but only around the Kings Cross area (one base station). Vodafone issued the following to us a while ago:

The news networks have been reporting that Vodafone have shut down the network to ordinary users in the London area because of the incidents reported this morning. This is NOT the case, although customers will be experiencing severe congestion in the London area. However, Met Police have asked us to invoke ACOLC* in one base station in the Kings cross area, and this should be switched on imminently. *ACOLC = Access Overload Control which restricts the network to emergency services only.

Re:Mobile phone net

[mbbac]

No wonder you Brits aren't getting through, the number for emergency calls is 911 not 999.

Re:Mobile phone net

[hey]

I bet that'll result in a lot of useless 999 calls.
"Can you tell my wife I'm OK", etc.

The Blitz Comes to London

[Mr. Foogle]

Not my analysis but love him or loathe his viewpoint Wretchard makes valid points.

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/07/blitz- comes-to-london.html

Re:The Blitz Comes to London

[JimboG1]

I've never seen this guy's blog before, but I've had a read and it worries me that he, and possibly others, are seeing this predominantly as "Islamic Terror". He makes the statement "there isn't room enough on the planet for Islamic terror and civilization."

Although I accept that these attacks were almost certainly committed by people that consider themselves Islamic freedom fighters, the important hallmark of this barbaric action is the pursuit of an extreme political agenda through cold-blooded murder. This is not new and has nothing to do with Islam. It is a question of who sets the global political agenda. It's big power (US and it's allies) vs. not-quite-so-big power (Osama and devotees to his cause).

It's abhorrent but it's not Islamic.

BTW, I'm sitting in an office in London Bridge trying to do some work, but I just can't concentrate.

Re:The Blitz Comes to London

[GypC]

There's a difference between the words "Islamic" and "Muslim".

"Islamic" implies political Islam, which is summed up in the words "Islam will rule the world under Shar'ia law. All infidels will convert or die except Jews and Christians which may be allowed to live as second class citizens if they pay extra taxes." Don't believe me? It's in their literature, in their sermons, even in their Koran.

This agenda is not, of course, the goal of most Muslims. They are mostly normal people like everyone else, just trying to get on with their lives.

This is the agenda of the Wahhabists and Salafists. A global caliphate.

The leftists (and ignorant liberals like a suprising majority of slashdot readers) will give you their standard whine about it being backlash against colonial oppression, but that's only their way of gaining a little political power of their own, or the clueless gabbling of their useful fools.

Re:The Blitz Comes to London

[JimboG1]

Can you reference this difference between the words "Islamic" and "Muslim"? I've never heard of it. Check out Wikipedia for the aggregate view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic/

"Islamic" is an adjective, "Islam" is a noun, and "Muslim" can be either. This is my understanding. They are all derived from the same root, "Salâm" (which means "peace").

Re:The Blitz Comes to London

[GypC]

Beg pardon, I was confusing "Islamic" with "Islamist".

So, you're right, it's not "Islamic Terror", it's "Islamist Terror".

Re:The Blitz Comes to London

[JimboG1]

That's not the word he used in his blog, which is the point.

So we're talking about "Islamism" then. Or are we talking about "militant Islam"? Or are we talking about "Wahhabism"? Or maybe "Islamic Fundamentalism"?

I don't really understand the meanings of all these differing terms and don't really need to at the moment. The point I am trying to make is that chucking around irrelevant labels for these people who have killed in cold-blood in London today (body-count up to 33 now) is distorting to people's opinions. It somehow makes these murderers' behaviour explicable as part of a wider political movement when, first and foremost, their choices are personal ones. They're vying for power in order to be able to implement their extreme political programme (if this does turn out to be the case). It belittles what these people have done.

Put it this way. I'm quite tall. Let's imagine I got together with a few other tall people and came up with a political programme to take power back from the short people who dominate my town. To do this, I set off a bomb on Main Street and killed some short people because my mates and I think this will help our cause.

In this political act, am I expressing my tallness? Fundamentally no, I am expressing my political programme, my craving for the power to implement it, and most importantly my personal paucity of ethics. My tallness is incidental to my actions.

So, let's not start a religious campaign against tall people (or rather, dispensing with my weak analogy, Muslims, Islamists, or Wahhabists) but instead a campaign against unethical personal acts. On both sides. If this makes me an "ignorant liberal" in you eyes, then so be it.

Re:News just in....

[Xiver]

Not necessarily ironic, but it is definitely misplaced.

Update: 7 explosions

[MoobY]

There have been 6 explosions on the underground, and one bus has been blasted.

Emergency services are reacting extremely organized and coordinated.

Numbers of casualities are unknown for now.

Re:Update: 7 explosions

[MynockGuano]

Maybe they should eat something.

Blair statement

[Mindjiver]

From Tony Blair's statement :

It is particularly barbaric that this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty in Africa, and the long term problems of climate change and the environment. Just as it is reasonably clear that this is a terrorist attack, or a series of terrorist attacks, it is also reasonably clear that it is designed and aimed to coincide with the opening of the G8. There will be time to talk later about this.

It is important however that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world. Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilised nations throughout the world.

Wikinews.org

[g_braad]

See Wikinews for the latest information...

it is also confirmed to be 7 bombs

Wow.

[ironwill96]

I'm amazed at how /.ers make jokes about everything, including people dying in terrorist attacks. We didn't find it very funny when someone crashed planes into our skyscrapers but when Europeans die it's a joke?

Let's be a little bit considerate. Not all /.ers are U.S., i'm sure we have lots of British readers here.

Re:Wow.

[grahams]

I'm amazed at how /.ers make jokes about everything, including people dying in terrorist attacks. We didn't find it very funny when someone crashed planes into our skyscrapers but when Europeans die it's a joke?

Let's be a little bit considerate. Not all /.ers are U.S., i'm sure we have lots of British readers here.

And of course, in your rant about how the U.S. needs to stop assuming it's the center of the world you assume that U.S. residents are the ones leaving the comments you find so offensive. Nice one.

Re:Wow.

[AccUser]

Cracking jokes in stressful situations is known to help people cope. My wife used to work in Accident & Emergency, and from the things she told me, Paramedics have the sickest sense of humour.

Re:Wow.

[Politburo]

Humor is the way that some people deal with things. I know that me and my friends were making jokes on 9/11 but at the same time we all knew it was a serious event.

Re:Wow.

[veeoh]

Thank you

Re:Wow.

[tgd]

People die in a lot of ways.

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.

[the grace of R'hllor]

Within six hours after a Boeing (747, I believe) plowed through an appartment building in the Netherlands (http://www.nrc.nl/W2/Lab/Profiel/Bijlmerramp/) there were jokes.

The same happened with 9/11. There's nothing wrong with it in principle. It's not like these folks are seeking out Brits and laughing in their faces. It's a way of coping with misery in the world.

In other words, lighten the fuck up. Folks reading this are okay, I hope their loved ones are okay, and I offer what sympathy they require, but that doesn't change a thing about how I'd respond to this.

Re:Wow.

[Kidbro]

I am European. I am an ex resident of London, and I have friends in London.
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.

Re:Wow.

[rokzy]

> People die in a lot of ways.

yes but this isn't "dying", it's pre-meditated murder.

Re:Wow.

[xyr0]

Yes, however I dont think most slashdotters cracking jokes here are paramedics or have experienced similiar situations.

Re:Wow.

[meringuoid]

Not all /.ers are U.S., i'm sure we have lots of British readers here.

We're probably the ones making the jokes. In the UK we have a long and proud tradition of extremely nasty gallows humour...

Re:Wow.

[mac666er]

It is regrettable that these things happen *at all*, there is just no excuse or justification for taking human lives for any motive.

However upon hearing the latest developments, it stroke me as strange that the attack was not more aggresive in nature. I worked in "the city" (the financial district) for a year, and it was a very widespread impression that if London was to be attacked, the subway would be a primary target. I remember seeing Picadilly ( a major line) being closed for simulated attack responses from Biological weapons or other means that would require a complete isolation of the train.

Having said that, I still think that this type of disruption was much less of what not only authorities were expecting, but maybe even Londoners. Perharps some of them can share their thoughts on this.

Re:Wow.

[rbarreira]

But would you make jokes so quickly if your mother or father died, for example?

Re:Wow.

[Blackbox42]

Shit yes. How else could you deal with a loss that great?

Re:Wow.

[rjw57]

Indeed - the coffee room humour today was very dark :).

Re:Wow.

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

That's what you do at the wake. You tell funny stories about whoever's passed. Humor can help you from cracking after suffering a huge loss.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Go ahead and tell some some funny 9/11 jokes please.

Re:Wow.

[ironwill96]

I didn't say that the people are just a joke to you. The point I was trying to make is that what you or someone else finds funny may not be all that funny to those closely involved.

As you and other posters have said in response to my comments, humor is a way to deal with stressful situations. Perhaps i'm one of those people who doesn't deal with stressful situations by going to humor. And trust me, i'm not the only one.

As to the statistics poster who talked about more dying from car accidents or smoking related illnesses, I'd like to point out that there is some difference in the deaths. Those who got in their car to drive to work chose to take that risk, and those who smoked for 20 years, well, we won't even get into that. Those killed by terrorists had their lives yanked away as they went about their daily business.

I don't think many people "choose" to die, their life either fades away naturally or it is taken from them in a tragic instance such as this. For me, that the number of deaths is less than 9/11 or othe terrorist incidents doesn't mean it is any less tragic. I think 1 death caused by terrorists is one too many.

Re:Wow.

[McSnarf]

Right. So do funeral directors.

However, these are all directly involved with the stressful situations you mention.

What happens here is just bad taste displayed by insensitive clods.

Re:Wow.

[tgd]

I'm not sure those who fall into that category particularly care about the distinction.

Re:Wow.

[Turn-X Alphonse]

TBH, it's in England. All of US are making jokes about it. It's how we are.

"Did we die?" "nope" "Good, lets take the piss".

It's the British way!

Have a good laugh about it, if I died I'd rather people took the piss then cried and whined.

Re:Wow.

[Mycroft_VIII]

Actually I'm not seeing a huge difference in the comedy level from then to now.
Though then as know I had to eigther read at -1 or infer from the vitrol to determine the levels.

Mycroft

Re:Wow.

[noz]

What does NASA stand for?

Need Another Seven Astronauts

Re:Wow.

[Per Abrahamsen]

Eh, "we" made lots of jokes about planes crashing into skyscrapers.

Re:Wow.

[AEton]

From Salon's feature Forbidden thoughts about 9/11:

My sister moved to Brooklyn on the night of Sept. 10. On the morning of the 11th, she and her best friend coped the best way they knew how: They climbed to their roof with a bottle of tequila, watched the towers burn, and toasted the day with a black-humor contest. Whoever could think of the grimmest, ugliest, most horrifying joke would win.

My sister called out, "To an unobstructed view of lower Manhattan!" and tossed off her tequila. The winning toast turned out to be, "To employment opportunities in the New York Fire Department!"

-----

I frantically called a friend's cellphone in lower Manhattan. An elementary school teacher, he was evacuating students when I rang. He was in sight of the just fallen towers. He said, "When the radio played 'It's Raining Men' this morning, I didn't realize they were serious." When I reminded him of this charming comment some months later, he didn't remember making it.

-----

During the whole awful day, I was kind of excited that something had finally happened for MY generation so I didn't have to listen to my grandparents bitch about Pearl Harbor endlessly and ask why doesn't my generation get some direction.

-----

I'm a college debater and the topic last year (decided in August) was international terrorism. What I kept thinking all day was, Damn, my research is completely useless. Those assholes!

-----

Within 12 hours of the tragedy, it occurred to me that they'll never, ever show that great episode of the "The Simpsons" where the family goes to New York and Homer has to take a whiz in the World Trade Center.

-----

Sept. 12 I heard some people talking about the different state quarters. Shuffling through their pockets they pulled out a few and noted that the New York quarter had a picture of the Statue of Liberty on it. "Heh, heh, lucky they didn't put a picture of the twin towers on it," one said.

-----

Q: What's Osama bin Laden's favorite football team?
A: The New York Jets.
-- Terry Forte, who says the joke was conceived on Sept. 12

-----

Also, in thinking about the possible end of the world, one of the thoughts I was most upset by went something like this: "FUCK. If we're all barricaded in bunkers we won't be able to go to the movies anymore."

-----

"Well, I guess Gary Condit's relieved."

--overheard by Josh Anderson, 30, Arlington, Va., during the week of 9/11

------

2001 was a great year for me; I hated the twin towers and I hated the Taliban and now they're both gone!

-- Lesbian feminist from Greenwich Village

-----

I knew a guy who narrowly escaped getting hit by a falling body. The first e-mail he sent out, two hours later, was, "Hey, how do we get ahold of all the new 212 cell numbers that'll be available?"

I had another friend who watched the towers go down from Brooklyn, didn't know what to do to get out his sudden rage against Arabs, so he opened his refrigerator and started throwing out all his Middle Eastern food, yelling as he tossed items one by one into the garbage: "Fuck this baba ghanoush! We don't need their fucking pita bread!" I won't even tell you what he did to the hummus.

-----

My husband and I were playing Jenga afterward. When the Jenga collapsed, I shouted "North Tower." Then the second round of the game, we shouted, "South Tower." Now we don't call it Jenga anymore. We call it North Tower.

-----

When I heard there was a terror attack downtown, I hoped the situation would degenerate into urban guerrilla warfare. I was really psyched to go out and kick some Islamist ass.

-----

I worked at a prominent chain of sex stores. On Sept. 11, I worked there all day, and as weirdo after weirdo came in, oblivious to the fact that hijacked airplanes had just crashed into and destroyed American landmarks and killed thousands of people (at that time, people were guessing up to 50,000 plus), I thought, Godammit. Of all the times to be on commission at a fucking sex store ...

-----

Re:Wow.

[Mycroft_VIII]

While I to prefer to deal with bad situations with humor (I've tried tears, not so good a response). I suspect some who are taking the humor here badly are also expressing thier shock and dismay at this tragedy. I do not hold thier words as being deliberately mean, but meerly an expression of pain, even if only sympathetic pain with those who have honest suffering this day.

Mycroft

Re:Wow.

[timtactoker]

Yes some people do have a nervous reaction to stress/tragedy. This nervous reaction can be humour. However this is normally manifested orally, much like screaming when one hurts ones self. I doubt there have ever been any cases of people having a nervous reaction where they log onto slahdot and post a comment.

Re:Wow.

[rev_sanchez]

Sure this is awful but I only have one question. Where is Dr. Who?

There had better be a shitload of Daleks to deal with there or I shall be very cross.

Re:Wow.

[rbarreira]

My grandfather died recently. Yes, we are telling funny stories which happened with/to him all the time, but we never said any joke about the way he died... That's my point. But I understand that people are different, and each one has the right to react to things the way it's better for them.

Re:Wow.

[rbarreira]

same reply...

Re:Wow.

[Rotten168]

Humor is our best weapon against terrorism. If we laugh at them, then we aren't terrified and since terror is the goal in terrorism, the terrorists will have failed their mission.

Most people I see joking are UKers anyway. Look up the term "stiff upper lip".

Re:Wow.

[tengwar]

Don't worry about it. There's a saying that if anything really bad happens in Britain, two things will happen. Someone will put a kettle on, and someone will crack a joke. True in my experience.

(in UK, not in London)

Re:Wow.

[meringuoid]

Sure this is awful but I only have one question. Where is Dr. Who?

Not his job. We need Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grubb. Or maybe just Sam.

I remember back in 2001 watching Osama's finest hour on TV and somehow at the back of my mind expecting to see the Bat-Signal light up any moment...

Re:Wow.

[Snaller]

30000 children die of starvation each day, nobody cares about them - except Bob Geldorf.

Re:Wow.

[macaulay805]

In Soviet Russia, you kill terrorists. At least that place has it right.

Re:Wow.

[flithm]

I wonder how much the paramedics would laugh if some random stranger came up, pointed laughing saying "Haha look at that guy he's all messed up, oh man that's hilarious."

That's exactly what these immature /.ers are doing.

If you haven't been affected by this tragedy you're not allowed to make jokes. Yes, that's how it works.

Re:Wow.

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>We didn't find it very funny when someone crashed planes into our skyscrapers

rec.humor.funny had a whole collection shortly after 9/11. I never did read it but I won't question how anyone else keeps themselves sane.

For any British readers I will say that everyone with a conscience feels this loss as though it were their own.

Re:Wow.

[elgatozorbas]

Cracking jokes in stressful situations is known to help people cope. My wife used to work in Accident & Emergency, and from the things she told me, Paramedics have the sickest sense of humour.

Yes, except for the small difference that the paramedics are the ones with the stress. Those telling jokes on /. are not.

Re:Wow.

[Kiryat Malachi]

I'm from the US, and I joked about 9/11 too.

Laughter makes us human. It's probably the best thing we have going. If you can't laugh at death, all you can do is be afraid of it.

Re:Wow.

[william_w_bush]

Why do you think they shut off the phones? Opened the first SMS after and my ringtone became
"ANNIHILATE!"

bit tired for a good dalek joke, ask me tomorrow when i've found my plunger-o-doom.

Re:Wow.

[jafac]

40,000 children die of starvation every day.

It's hard not to see everything else as a joke, in comparison.

Re:Wow.

[travdaddy]

On the contrary, /.ers did find it funny when someone crashed planes into our skyscrapers, just look back at those posts.

Set your threshold at +4 like I do, no sick jokes up here.

Re:Wow.

[Maxo-Texas]

You have to laugh or else you go crazy.

Re:Wow.

[maggern]

That remind me that I once wrote an article in my student newspaper about "freaky" experiences of paramedics. I stole the text from an american site. Oh man, did people like to read it. :-) Try googeling for the original site, I had a really good time reading stories on some websites. http://www.thelunatick.com/ems/strange.html something like this, I think.

Re:Wow.

[R3d M3rcury]

I think it would depend on the situation. Story I heard, don't know if it's true: New EMT arrives at the site of a nasty automobile accident. He goes to treat one of the victims who is a gory mess. He takes one look, says "Yuck! What a mess!" and proceeds to treat the victim. The victim was conscious, heard what the EMT said and, after being released from hospital, sued the ambulance company and had the EMT fired.

Re:Wow.

[dtolman]

1) Wow - that gave me a laugh. You admit that strictly speaking, my point is 100% correct. And then you demand I speculate. Whats the point? The only people in the position to know are the people in question - and perhaps the authorities who questioned them. Not everything has a rational explanation - especially when you compound that with the fact that 30 million people were in the physical light cone of the WTC events. You are assuming causality - that everything that happened that day is relevant - when reality is that the actions of the vast majority of those 30 million has no relevance. Any speculation on their actions, no matter how inane, is equally valid - and also equally invalid.

2) The refusals of the administration to cooperate when investigating the US governments half-assed handling of intelligence and lack of coherent anti-terrorist policy prior to the events has little to do with the actual investigation of the actions of the individuals who carried out the hijacking, or those who financed or directed them.

3) Is a series of fallacies. The fact of the matter is that the fire started after the crash - the sheer momentum of the airplanes meant that some of its contents - especially from the front (like where the passport probably was) and heaver engines of the airplanes - were expelled relatively intact (except for damage from the fall). Other documented debris found on the roofs of nearby buildings (and on the streets) include an engine, fuselage parts, seats from the forward compartment, and not to mention body parts from the passengers themselves.

To our British friends

[wazzzup]

We stand and mourn with you today. I am truly sorry for the losses you have incurred and weep with you in this terrible moment.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for your words. But we don't need to keep strong (it's not an issue). We don't need any Bush-like words like resolution and not wavering. We'll just take it in our stride and get on with it. As if these people can interrupt our lives. They're not even worth spending time thinking about them. This isn't the first terrorist attack on London, and won't be the last. We've had worse too from a death and destruction perspective - these bombs were meant to cause distruption and fear. They won't stop a city like London though.

Re:To our British friends

[SQL Error]

Right. London got through the Blitz with its spirit intact, and that was far worse than this, day after day.

But know that America and Australia are with you, allies and friends, no matter how tough it gets.

Re:To our British friends

[Anne Thwacks]

Thanks for your sympathy.

However, please remember that we have had plenty of terrorist attacks over the years, mainly by the (American funded) IRA.

The scary think about this one is the extent to which the police and government appear to have over-reacted, and the fact that our present government is already hell-bent on abuses of civil liberties justied by claims that they are "anti-terrorist".

The whole purpose of terrorism is to scare the government into over-reaction (read all about Che Guevara, etc). In general, it has failed miserably to achieve anything useful, anywhere. There is real hope that you will be able to tell your children "This tactic was tried all over the world, by all sorts of people, and almost all did their cause irreperable damage. Eventually, the Internet made is possible for the perpetrators to see how stupid there actions were, and gave up."

Re:To our British friends

[Martin Spamer]

Be strong people of England.

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.

Re:To our British friends

[osd1000]

From a quick straw poll, I don't think many people are weeping. Sure, it's a bad thing to have happened, but we've coped with worse in the form of road accidents, train crashes, flash floods, and a pretty poor run rate against Australia.

Sometimes, being British is just a matter of getting on with life.

(S)

Re:To our British friends

[Anonymous Coward]

The day when we need to be encouraged to "be strong" in order to carry on with our day to day lives in the face of people holding bombs to our heads is the day that the terrorists have already won.

Winston Churchill said that "we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender". Here we find ourselves fighting in the hearts and the minds of the people and the rooms of public debate.

Changing our lifestyle would be giving in. We'll offer up a quick prayer for the dead and bereaved, then carry on about our business; like we have done since 1940.

Re:To our British friends

[meringuoid]

But know that America and Australia are with you, allies and friends, no matter how tough it gets. But not France, where everyone's got to be trying really, really hard not to smirk from a colossal sense of schadenfreude...

Re:To our British friends

[irote]

Thanks, I don't think we need your mourning. And don't go into a psychotic blood-donor exstacy either. It didn't help last time.

Re:To our British friends

[william_w_bush]

I'm just blown away by the courage you have to deal with it rationally, it's been 4 years and half of washington d.c. still runs like crazed rats when the traffic-copter goes overhead.

Re:To our British friends

[eoinmadden]

Sadly, Londoners have had much expierence of terrorists attacks over 3 decades, from the IRA. Thankfully, In recent years a peace process has developed. But what is interesting is that peace was only able to exist when all sides decided to pursue their agendas through political means rather than military (or paramilitary) means.
I guess I'm saying that facing down the IRA with military action didn't achieve much. Talking to them did.

Re:To our British friends

[Col. Bloodnok]

I guess I'm saying that facing down the IRA with military action didn't achieve much. Talking to them did.

Actually several covert actions (SAS and others) against the IRA were highly effective. How you measure this effectiveness in the big scheme of things is, of course extremely hard. Did they help lead to an environment where serious talks could begin? Who knows?

Re:To our British friends

[slugo3]

The IRA had an agenda which didn't include killing you for being an infidel.
They killed some civilians but their targets were usually military personel. Not like its worth shit but they actually apologized for killing some kids in a bombing once.
Talking to terrorists like the kind that plants bombs in subways accomplishes nothing. Your existence is there problem.

Re:To our British friends

[Brandybuck]

I thought it was because the IRA hotheads had all gotten themselves killed. The Iraqi insurgents are having to import Saudi suicide bombers, because they don't have any of their own left. But Ireland didn't have anywhere to recruit new blood from and it was taking to long for their babies to grow into teenagers to keep the level of violence high.

Re:To our British friends

[slugo3]

Subways are nothing special. I was referring to the kind of person that targets innocent civilians going about their lives.
I'm not defending the IRA's actions by any means. They planted a lot of bombs in public places and killed civilians. The guys who planted those bombs earned ther place in hell just like the people who planted the bombs today.
The IRA's agenda wasn't the destruction of Britain and the death of its entire people though, They wanted British troops out of Ireland. Alqueda just wants us dead.
I dont care what your beef is, bombing civilians can never be justified.

Re:To our British friends

[meringuoid]

I guess I'm saying that facing down the IRA with military action didn't achieve much. Talking to them did.

But it got them to the point where they would talk.

From what I've heard since the end of the Troubles, the position was that between the various informers and infiltrators and spies the British had within the IRA and the SAS and RUC raids against IRA resources, the organisation was in a pretty bad way. The British could probably have broken the IRA in the early 1990s, but to do so would involve a massive increase in police powers in Ulster and a hellacious amount of violence. The old problem of having a tiger cornered. Not really the sort of thing you want to do if you can avoid it.

So, secret negotiations were begun with Sinn Fein and the IRA (which we diplomatically pretend are separate entities) which eventually led to the Good Friday Agreement. The IRA wasn't actually defeated by the intelligence and special forces war, but without that resource and the obvious fact that no amount of bombing was ever going to intimidate the British public, the IRA would probably never have come to the table in the first place.

Re:To our British friends

[StarTux]

And of course, not to mention the Blitz in which our grandparents endured unspeakable horrors.

StarTux

Re:To our British friends

[eoinmadden]

Its true that SAS/RUC raids, sometimes with loyalist paramilitary involvement, did devestate IRA resources. This SAS/RUC engagement was very necessary.
But some would say that as the IRA became more unprecictable and Britian spent more money on security it became clear to BOTH sides that military and paramilitary disengagement was the only way forward.
You are saying that with the SAS/RUC/LVF etc. the IRA would not have come to the table. But many in Sinn Fein will argue that without the IRA there would have been no table to come to in the first place!

My own view is that the IRA campaign was, of course, a terrible immoral crime, which did nothing to bring about peace or the possibility of a united Ireland. But that the policies of Margret Thacther, which was to vilify Sinn Fein and ignore the Irish government, only increased the membership of the IRA. Only when John Major began meaningful dialogue with the Irish Government and Sinn Fein, then had the people of Northern Ireland the means to begin shutting down the IRA.

PS. When I re-read this post I realise that is may come accross as Pro-Sinn Fein, despite the fact that a Sinn Fein supporter. I've had oppurtunities to vote for them but never have.

Re:To our British friends

[eoinmadden]

That last line should say "PS. When I re-read this post I realise that is may come accross as Pro-Sinn Fein, despite the fact that I'm not a Sinn Fein supporter. I've had oppurtunities to vote for them but never have."

Jobs

[rxmd]

I've graduated from university with an M.A. in Islamic Studies, CS and communication theory a couple of months ago. It's really sad to see that this actually creates job opportunities for us. Makes you wish you could afford to stay unemployed.

Transportation and IT Networks

[DanielMarkham]

Looks like the transportation network in London was targeted this morning. I wonder if there are lessons that IT can learn from transportation networks or vice-versa? Transportation networks are mostly hub-and-spoke, and dependent on the trust of the people using them. IT networks are presumably more web-like and automated.
I guess with transportation, the issue of trust can completely shut down the network, while with IT, the network mostly assumed to be trustworthy, with individual packets being suspect. Still, it seems like there should be some cross-over knowledge-sharing when it comes to network security for both types of networks.

Get the latest from BBC

[Codeala]

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...)

Re:Get the latest from BBC

[Bog Standard]

Big up to the BBC tech dept for keeping the streaming video working throughout this. I wondered if the servers for this (and www) would hold up and they have.

Be alert, the world needs more lerts

Re:Get the latest from BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC has more bandwidth than God.

Re:Get the latest from BBC

[EuphoricaL]

they did a lot better today than yesturday. For the olympics the feed went down for about a hour, and the website.

Re:Get the latest from BBC

[TheRaven64]

I haven't been able to get their video feeds all day (and I'm on a 10Gb/s link with 1Gb/s going to my machine, and able to get over 1MB/s from other places). During the September 11 attacks I could just about load text from their site, but no images, and the text timed out more than half of the time.

Re:First Post

[MoonFog]

An Al Qaeda groups has claimed responsibility already.

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

Re:Terrible.

[Guppy06]

The recent example of Spain seems to blow holes in both of those theories. I doubt anybody in Washington or London would want to do anything that might push the UK public against the war enough to force a pull-out.

"In any case, we should bomb Mecca every time something like this happens."

The capital of Saudi Arabia is Riyadh. All you're proposing is the random killing of random Muslism, who may or may not be Saudi (or even Arab), considering Mecca's status as a pilgrimage destination. Way to take the high road there.

Mobile Phones: No contact.

[Darvin]

The reason nobody can contact each other on mobile phones is because the police have had them jammed and switched off on all coverage in central London incase there are any secondary blasts.

It's thought that the bombs were detonated by mobile devices.

Re:Mobile Phones: No contact.

[LizardKing]

It's thought that the bombs were detonated by mobile devices.

No, the phones were switched off to prevent overloading of the networks as they are used by the emergency services as well as the public. It's unlikely (impossible actually) that mobile phones were used to trigger the underground blasts as there's no signal down there.

Re:Mobile Phones: No contact.

[seti]

In most European subways there are mobile receivers (I have noticed them firsthand in Brussels and Stockholm), so chances are they are around in London too - although i cannot be certain.

Re:Mobile Phones: No contact.

[Darvin]

There have been trials of Mobile recieves in the underground, especially for resuce services. The transmitters are shut down which is part of the UK government plan which would have been put into place by the police. Currently rescue services and 999 (911) calls are allowed through the transmitter jam.

Re:Mobile Phones: No contact.

[91degrees]

London Underground is an exception. Plans to add receivers are occasionally suggested, but it's not hugely popular. Typical journey times are only 15 minutes, and being out of touch for 15 minutes is considered less annoying than sitting next to some idiot shouting into his phone.

Our thoughts & prayers go out to the UK

[white1827]

To preface, we here in the US are certainly sending our thoughts and prayers to the UK today. However, I am disappointed to hear that the stock markets are selling off just because of terrorism. This sort of mindless panic is exactly what they are trying to achieve. To truly defeat terrorism, we have to learn to chin up and plod onward with our lives. If we cower in fear and panic, we allow them to win.

Re:Our thoughts & prayers go out to the UK

[Cocodude]

In reality, hardly a blip occurred on the stocks. It seems as though they only went down about 5% and are totally rebounding now. http://www.londonstockexchange.com/en-gb/

Re:Our thoughts & prayers go out to the UK

[Peeteriz]

In stock markets, 5% during an hour is an awfully large amount, not 'hardly a blip'.

Re:Our thoughts & prayers go out to the UK

[SQL Error]

The way stock markets work is based on positive feedback; in the short term they exaggerate everything, good or bad. Ignore them. Mindless panic is what they do every day.

Re:Our thoughts & prayers go out to the UK

[iainl]

They frankly aren't in the UK, very much. There's a slight drop, but this is in no small part due to the fact that there's no-one around to buy anything - the volumes are tiny. Everyone I know in the City has been sent home for their own safety.

Re:Our thoughts & prayers go out to the UK

[CarrotLord]

Stocks dropping is not necessarily mindless panic. The FTSE is currently down about 3%. It's a significant amount, but when you consider that it rose by 3% over the past week (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EFTSE&t=5d&l=on &z=m&q=l&c=), it's not exactly a huge disaster.

An even like this will naturally remove some of the value from stocks, as revenues from many types of companies will fall, though usually only briefly.

Re:Our thoughts & prayers go out to the UK

[Cophee]

Obligatory Salman Rushdie Quote:

The fundamentalist believes that we believe in nothing. In his world-view, he has his absolute certainties, while we are sunk in sybaritic indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know that he is wrong. We must agree on what matters: kissing in public places, bacon sandwiches, disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature, generosity, water, a more equitable distribution of the world's resources, movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty, love. These will be our weapons. Not by making war but by the unafraid way we choose to live shall we defeat them.

How to defeat terrorism? Don't be terrorized. Don't let fear rule your life. Even if you are scared.

Re:Our thoughts & prayers go out to the UK

[iwadasn]

In the immortal (and misquoted, by me) words of Benjaman Graham....

"Stocks decreasing in price is not a bad thing, it is a good thing. If you saw a sign at your local car dealership that said '10% off', you would be happy, not sad. Furthermore, an investor is almost never forced to sell, if you choose to sell whenever the price dips, then you are turning your primary advantage (having liquid markets) into a disadvantage. You should not be tempted to turn an imaginary loss into a real one through other people's mistakes of judgement."

Markets going down isn't a bad thing, not really. Let the markets do what they will, and worry about the people. If you're concerned with money, then worry about underlying infrastructure, not about the psychology of the masses. If you want to make an investment, then just buy now.

Re:Our thoughts & prayers go out to the UK

[ragnar]

The market is reacting to instability. It is a pretty normal reaction, but most savvy investors won't dump their holdings. In fact, they will probably snatch up some good picks.

That said, I take issue with the notion that we should just go on about our lives as usual, supposing that the usual is greed-mongering on the stock market. I don't think it is that odd to disrupt consumerism for a moment to consider the tragedy of bombings in a public place.

London Blasts

[mcwidget]

Appears to have been a few explosions reported at Liverpool St, Aldgate East, Edgware Rd, Kings Cross, Moorgate and Russel Sq. A bus exploded in Tavistock Sq.

Recently a group calling itself "Secret Organisation al Qaeda in Europe" claimed responsibility. There are a few dead and nearly 200 in hospital according to various news sites.

mcwidget

Cellphone system near breakdown

[CdBee]

I'm 20 miles out but many friends work in London. it's taken several hours to confirm they're all safe

My closest friends were 10 minutes late on the train.. and missed the aldgate bomb by 10 minutes as a result

All the stupid people who thought war could make us safer are to blame for this. Thank you, Tony Blair. You stopped the IRA bombing london then started al Qaida doing it. Sheer fucking genius.

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[Mindjiver]

Mr. Excuser

Why don't you blame the IRA bombings on the brittish government when you blame them for this bombing. Since both (according to your logic) is a consequence of an unjust occupation.

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[CdBee]

I do blame the IRA bombings on British occupation of Ulster. I just thought that was an extra irrelevance, so didn't include it.

We Brits fought the IRA for 90 years and the bombs kept exploding. Then 3 years of talks nearly solved the whole thing (no more IRA attacks on the British mainland although they're still up to their usual criminal crap in Ulster)

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[cakesy]

What is it with this irrational mad scramble for everyone to find out if there friends are safe.

Got to find out whether my friends are safe...Got to find out whether my friends are safe

What are you going to do if they aren't rush down there and help out? Why don't you do that anyway.

I could understand if this was your family, but I think it is getting a bit ridiculous. Gets to the point where everybody has to ring everybody then ever new who lives in London, or even went there once for a weekend.

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[Mindjiver]

Yes, lets invite mr bin laden to the table. That is the way to solve it.

I am proud of your prime minister and the way he as reacted to this barbaric act. If you would like to live in a country without a spine I welcome you to my country. Spines are optional here.

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[CdBee]

God no - nobody would seriously enter talks with him. The smart thing would be to realise that bin Ladens power comes not from his inner evil but from the constituency of downtrodden, angry Moslems he represents.

deal with the social circumstances that cause bin Laden, not the man himself.

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[alexcampbell]

It looks like the cellphone network isn't the only one having trouble: Reuters' web server has ground to a halt and is throwing ASP.Net Server Too Busy errors. http://today.reuters.com/

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[Mindjiver]

Of course we should deal with him and dispose him and his supporters. There is no reason to choose between these two responses.

This is why the reformation of the middle east is so important. This is why the success of the democratic state of Iraq is so important. This is why we need to be firm against countries like Syria, Iran and Saudiarabia.

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[tweek]

Why does everyone assume that Muslims want it to change? Sure I know there are Muslim women and moderate Muslims that would love to see reintegration with the rest of society (if reintegration is the right choice of words?) but I'm beginning to get the feeling that, just as the Extreme Christian Right is taking control in America, so it is happening in the Muslim world.

I wonder sometimes (and posit'd the same thing when 9/11 happened) if Islam would even tolerate anything less that total worldwide Islam?

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[Cophee]

Got to find out whether my friends are safe...Got to find out whether my friends are safe

Because it hurts not knowing...A form of selfishness, maybe. But a healthy one.
First thing I did was try to phone my brother to find out if he was OK. Couldn't get hold of him by mobile, so I tried email. He replied within seconds. I love the internet.

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[jcr]

All the stupid people who thought war could make us safer are to blame for this.

Does the name "Neville Chamberlain" ring a bell? He tried the policy you're advocating, and all he got you was the blitz.

-jcr

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[Nethershaw]

All the stupid people who thought war could make us safer are to blame for this. Thank you, Tony Blair. You stopped the IRA bombing london then started al Qaida doing it. Sheer fucking genius.

Your logic needs some work.

Frankly, I can't stand Bush and I definitely did not vote for him; however, he and Tony Blair are not to blame for these attacks despite the paths of action they have chosen for our respective countries. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc--you argue that since Bush and Blair have advocated these things (i.e., military action in Iraq), these attacks that have followed are a necessary and direct result of them. That's not right... correlation does not imply causation, and such a path of logic hardly places any kind of responsibility on the agents that actually committed this atrocity: the terrorists themselves.

What you have to remember is that these people are ideologically opposed to our way of life. They call my fellow Americans and I "infidels" and constituents of "the Great Satan." Unmitigated hatred motivates their actions, not some logical progression of thought. While our presence in the Middle East almost certainly gives them something to point at (as what any rational person would call little more than a feeble excuse), it is not the cause for this. We provoked the 9/11 attack by merely existing, and the instant we blame ourselves and one another for these heinous crimes these monsters have committed, we afford credence to their claims that we are, in essence, the Bad Guys(tm).

Don't blame Blair for the terrorism. Blame the terrorists, and the terrorists alone.

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[andyt]

Don't blame Blair for the terrorism. Blame the terrorists, and the terrorists alone.

True. Although one could argue that, by instigating the "War on Terror", Bush and Blair have pursued policies that have actually acted as a fantastic terrorist recruitment program.

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[m50d]

What you have to remember is that these people are ideologically opposed to our way of life. They call my fellow Americans and I "infidels" and constituents of "the Great Satan."

Try reading what they themselves say rather than what Fox tells you. It's not about hating your way of life, it's about hating what you've done to them and their fellow Muslims. Bin laden had 3 reasons for what he does, US support of Israel doing whatever it pleases including killing any Palestinians it wants to, US support of the undemocratic and not really nice to its people Saudi royal family, and one thing I can't remember but it was in similar vein. Are these attacks an appropriate response? No, of course not. But have Blair and the US govt done things wrong? Definitely. And would these attacks have happened if they didn't? That's far from certain. Possibly someone else would have had the idea, or found something else wrong with things. But Bin Laden does his attacks in response to what the US and others have done, and though his response is grossly disproportionate, the people who did the things that motivated him still take some of the blame.

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[CdBee]

You speak as a European, living in a place with an established tradition of democracy which is respected as it was won by internal struggle

I don't believe democracy can be imposed upon a people, I think anything imposed by an outside force will be instinctively rejected.. and I see todays events as supporting that point of view.

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[CdBee]

The old standard excuse of comparing anything that you dislike to Hitler doesn't really apply here, since al-Q is not a nation, and has neither an army, a navy nor an air force.

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[Mindjiver]

The same was said about the germans, the japanease, the koreans an many more.

I speak as a human being, that was born free, when I say that ALL people seek the same liberties as us. To say that some people do not want these liberties in my view is somewhat rasist.

But I find it encouraging that you at least have sensible position on this issue, that I cannot say about other people that I have debated this with.

Our liberty more and more depend of the liberty of others and as long there is despotism and repression none of us can really be free.

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[CdBee]

Your own position makes sense, although you have slightly misunderstood me.

My belief is more along the lines that freedom in order to be respected must be sought... and also that cultural norms differ.

For example, the freedom to pursue a gay relationship on equal legal terms would be considered normal in the Europe of recent years, but would not be easily accepted in Qatar or Zimbabwe due to a different cultural outlook. If we are to help the peoples of other countries to achieve their potential I believe that it should be by supporting them in attaining their desires, not by foisting a pre-packaged definition of liberty upon them.

For another example, consider food. In Europe, it is a cultural norm that livestock animals are killed with a captive bullet gun after stunning. The cultural norms of an Islamic nation require that livestock be killed with a knife to comply with the Halal law. To us as Europeans this is somewhat crude.. to a moslem, meat from an animal killed with a club or bullet is Haraam - forbidden, as it may be "tainted" with blood. These small differences can lead to major upsets when not considered.. they make me feel that we need first to do no harm, and to doubt our ability to influence. Also, consider the Social Charter of the Maastricht treaty. Caused havoc in the british press when it was imposed in the 90s despite the fact that it enhaced the rights of most workers and improved their position
again, imposing a solution led almost to its rejection

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[mvdwege]

Does the name Winston Churchill ring a bell? This is what he had to say about Chamberlain:

It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man.

But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart -- the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour.

Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.

Mart

Re:Cellphone system near breakdown

[jcr]

Sure, Chamberlain meant well. So did Jimmy Carter, but what they both failed to realize was that they were dealing with genuinely evil, malicious people, and that the failure of appeasement was a foregone conclusion.

-jcr

Re:Fucking Animals

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny. That's exactly what the terrorists say about those they attack.

Re:Terrible.

[rsynnott]

Because, erm, it was obviously authorities in Mecca who did this, correct?

It's horrendous, but bombing random developing-world nations is probably not any sort of solution...

As it breaks...

[irokie]

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.

Re:As it breaks...

[simong_oz]

I'm not in London (in Leeds), but have just heard back from friends/family who are. Everyone is pretty shaken in London, but surprisingly, under the circumstances, calm and controlled. Yes, london is gridlocked, but from what I'm told the emergency forces seem to be in control.

There is no punishment sufficient for the bastards (I refuse to call them people) that did this. My thoughts are with everyone in london.

Re:As it breaks...

[irokie]

A) I'm not British, I'm Irish. Take that into account. My point was that Tony Blair has repeatedly tried to restrain George Bush from his more extreme things. No, the British were not (100%) in the right in going into Iraq.
But being there, they've a hell of a lot more experience dealing with terrorists and with local people who may resent their presence.

And B) When they did go into Afghanistan and Iraq, they declared war, thereby agreeing to abide by the rules of war and not do something like, i don't know, kill innocent people as they were on the bus to work. I think that saying "look, we're coming and we're coming armed" is a little less extreme (not to say hideously discourteous, dishonourable, cowardly...) than killing a busload of people. Particluarly in a city that less than a week ago hosted one of the biggest humanitarian events ever.

We Irish aren't known for our love of the English, but I don't think that you'd find any person in this country who'd believe that London deserved this to happen to them.

Re:As it breaks...

[ArsSineArtificio]

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.

You don't get it yet, do you? The perpetrators of the London bombings, the Madrid bombing, the Istanbul bombing, the Bali bombing, and the 9/11 attacks aren't interested in "humanitarian work" or in "progress". They are interested in defeating the West and putting it under fundamentalist Islamic rule. They have never made any secret of it.

Re:As it breaks...

[vandan]

When they did go into Afghanistan and Iraq, they declared war, thereby agreeing to abide by the rules of war and not do something like, i don't know, kill innocent people as they were on the bus to work.

What bullshit! So the UK declared war ... on 2 innocent countries ... and now you're saying that they are in the right because of the fact that they declared war ... and thereby agreed ... not to kill any innocent people. So what about the hundreds of thousands of innocent people they killed? That's some pretty fucked up logic right there. And what about Abu Graib? You can't join the coalition of the killing and then claim that your hands are clean, and it was the nasty Americans that did all the killing an torturing? You're ( UK and USA ) both in it up to your eyeballs, as we are here in Australia.

I think that saying "look, we're coming and we're coming armed" is a little less extreme (not to say hideously discourteous, dishonourable, cowardly...) than killing a busload of people.

No, it's a lot more extreme. Of course I'm using the number of innocent people who died as the measuring stick. What measuring stick are you using? You whinge about killing a busload of people. How many busloads could you fill with Iraqi people who have been killed. The problem with your analysis is that other people's lives aren't worth as much to you as westerner's lives, and that's sad. In fact that's what the whole problem is.

You're also making the fatal mistake of assuming that those who attacked London have the ability to wage a traditional war. They don't. Nor are they interested in waging war. And this is what pisses off Dubya and Bliar so much. The 'terrorists' are simply drawing people's attention to their cause. The problem for those in so-called 'civilised' societies is that our media and our governments refuse to even admit that there is an issue, and instead try to push everything aside by saying "they hate our freedom". What bullshit!

We Irish aren't known for our love of the English, but I don't think that you'd find any person in this country who'd believe that London deserved this to happen to them.

Well I think it's possible that there were people who deserved this. Those who knew the facts vs lies on the WOMD issue, for example. And those who blindly followed Bliar into the war. It's not enough to simply say "well I didn't know we were wrong". The British people claim to live in a democracy. Well there are responsibilities that go with that, ie you are responsible for the actions of your elected representatives. Didn't know? Too bad. It's a democracy. It's your responsibility to know, and to prevent atrocities such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq occuring in your name.

Now back to your statement that you don't think you could find anyone who'd belive that London deserved this to happen. How's this for you? I've seen a number of posts here and in other places, and even seen people on BBC saying, that London 'had it coming', and that it was 'only a matter of time'. To me, that's a diplomatic, freudian-slip kinda way of saying that London deserved it. Having said that, I would not wish it on anyway, and I don't condone the attacks. I simply see karma at work.

Re:As it breaks...

[irokie]

i suppose that's true...
how the fuck do you deal with that sort of mentality though? killing them only makes it worse, imposing sanctions only makes it worse, ignoring it doesn't seem to make any difference at all...

my thoughts would be that if you better educate and care for those that would become fanatics and terrorists, then maybe they'll see that they don't have to kill people to make their point.

Re:As it breaks...

[bmgoau]

They want progress in the opposite direction. They believe that only by destabilizing wesstern nations aiming for peace will their extreamist islamic world-order ever happen. What they are to, dare i say, ignorant to see is that every time they deal us with a relativly small attack, even though such an attack is regretable, they only provide us with more reason to unite and strengthen.

Re:As it breaks...

[Ironsides]

my thoughts would be that if you better educate and care for those that would become fanatics and terrorists, then maybe they'll see that they don't have to kill people to make their point.

You are assuming that all of them can be reasoned with. Maybe you can reason with some of them (more power to you if you can). However, I personally don't think you can reason with all of them. (That's not to say you can't, I just don't think so.) For the cases where you can't reason with them, it comes down to kill or be killed. No other options that I see in those cases.

Al Habayas (I think that is the correct name, the terrorist group in/around Lebanon) is at least finally realizing diplomacy is a way to get things done.

Re:As it breaks...

[ArsSineArtificio]

my thoughts would be that if you better educate and care for those that would become fanatics and terrorists, then maybe they'll see that they don't have to kill people to make their point.

The problem, as others have pointed out, is that the "fanatics and terrorists" at this point tend to come from the middle and upper classes. OBL himself is the scion of a wealthy Saudi family. The "insurgents" in Iraq are the Arab-world equivalents of the bored rich kids who fly overseas to protest at WTO meetings - they can become international terrorists literally because they can afford the airfare and bring cash with them. They aren't fighting for "social justice", or "economic fairness" or anything else - they are fighting the jihad to restore the Caliphate and bring the West into the House of Islam. The poor, desperate hardscrabble farmers are still at home being poor, desperate hardscrabble farmers. They don't have the money or leisure to go to London and blow things up.

How can you "deal with that sort of mentality"? By doing exactly what is being done, grim though it is to modern sensibilities. You kill as many of them as you can find. You attempt to break their logistics, assassinate their leaders, and demoralize their underlings. This diminishes their ability to fight, and destroys their belief that they're going to win.

Re:As it breaks...

[irokie]

"the UK declared war ... on 2 innocent countries". the UK declared war on the regime of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. They didn't declare war on the people of these countries. Yes, they went in against the will of the people and killed many of them in the process, but Saddam wasn't exactly the world's most compassionate man, now was he? And the Taliban, they've got a great track record on human rights. "So what about the hundreds of thousands of innocent people they killed?" well what about the hundreds of thousands of innocents that Saddam and the Taliban killed? I don't want to sound like I am/ever was in favour of the war, I marched against it, signed petitions and wrote letters to politicians exhorting them to forbid the USAF from landing in Shannon. "And what about Abu Graib?" Yeah, i think that whole thing was fucked up. There's no excuse for that.

"The problem with your analysis is that other people's lives aren't worth as much to you as westerner's lives..." fuck off! I never said that. I'm sorry if that's what you took from what I wrote, maybe i should've been clearer (but I've got a feeling that whatever I say, it'll be turned against me... won't let that stop me making a twat of myself...). Those innocents that died in Iraq and Afghanistan died in a (maybe misguided) effort on the part of the US and the UK to institute regime change. The US & UK have good intentions, perhaps (yeah, yeah, road to hell), but that doesn't excuse the [i'm sure they'd say accidental] killing of innocents. But to a reasonable person, that might make you think twice before going out and committing an act of terrorism.

"You're also making the fatal mistake of assuming that those who attacked London have the ability to wage a traditional war. They don't. Nor are they interested in waging war. And this is what pisses off Dubya and Bliar so much. The 'terrorists' are simply drawing people's attention to their cause. The problem for those in so-called 'civilised' societies is that our media and our governments refuse to even admit that there is an issue, and instead try to push everything aside by saying "they hate our freedom". What bullshit!"

Hello? More than 30 years of sectarian terrorism in the North of Irland? In Ireland, we're particularly aware of people who commit terrorist acts to draw attention to their cause. Doesn't mean we like it, doesn't mean we support it, and last time you checked, how well had the IRA done? And what's this cause you're talking about? I've heard of no manifesto from al Qaeda, other than bringing about the downfall of the evil west.

I had no part in electing the British government. I'm Irish. We're a separate country. Neutrality is built into our constitution. My name is nowhere near the occupation of Iraq, and it never will be.

As for the people saying London had it coming, some of those are saying it was inevitable that London would be attacked because it was high up the list. A few others said that maybe now they're seeing karma in action, but i haven't seen one yet that came right out and said something along the lines of "serves the fuckers right".

Re:As it breaks...

[irokie]

"OBL himself is the scion of a wealthy Saudi family."

Yeah, but OBL isn't running around with 50lbs of TNT strapped to his chest. The leaders and high-ecehlons of these organisations may be the bored kids from the Middle East's answer to the OC, but i'd lay money that the grunts are the same as they are in any army, agitated lower-class people looking for someone to blame for their hardship, and being led by a very charismatic man who says "look at the wealth west, not only do they have everything you want, look at how they flaunt the virtue of Allah...", just like the KKK... you have educated, well to do charismatic people in the positions of power, but the guys that go out and lynch people are joe pick-up and his 6-pack of mates...

to be fair, i'm willing to be shown wrong on this, which just means that this is a very nasty problem...

i don't know if i agree with you on how to deal with the problem. killing lots of people, being grim to modern sensibilities, can sometimes be as demoralising to the people who are doing the killing as to the people being killed...

Re:As it breaks...

[advocate_one]

I think it really is related to the Olympics... i believe there could have been another team of bombers based in Paris and the masterminds only gave the attack order to the team based in the winning city...

Re:As it breaks...

[ArsSineArtificio]

i don't know if i agree with you on how to deal with the problem. killing lots of people, being grim to modern sensibilities, can sometimes be as demoralising to the people who are doing the killing as to the people being killed...

I'm sure the British weren't too thrilled about fighting the Second World War, either, but it's not as though they had much of a choice. It only takes one side to start a war.

Re:As it breaks...

[Brandybuck]

The 'terrorists' are simply drawing people's attention to their cause.

And what is their cause? A global Islamic state. Or at the least a pan-Islamic state with superpower status. It's an utterly ridiculous goal, but they believe it. Short of our conversion to their particular sect of Islam and their twisted social norms, they will continue to use terrorism against us as long as they are able.

The terrorism isn't about economics, imperialism, capitalism or anything else the left like to apologize to the terrorists for. The Al Qaeda brand of terrorism is simply about xenophobia.

Re:As it breaks...

[Buck2]

zombo.com rules

cracked me up

Re:As it breaks...

[vandan]

And what is their cause? A global Islamic state.

Says who? You? The mainstream media? Maybe Dubya and Bliar? The ones who lied to us over WOMD?

How exactly are the terrorists going to achieve a global Islamic state by blowing things up? It's an absurd statement to make. And it's overlooking the glaring coincidence that those being attacked are those who attacked them first. Surely if the terrorists were after a global islamic state, or simply to achive the most death and destruction, they wouldn't be so picky about who they blew up.

Short of our conversion to their particular sect of Islam and their twisted social norms

Whose twisted social norms. It's our twisted social norms that bought about the situation. We officially invaded Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, based on what was known to be a lie. The handful of terrorists who attacked London are NOT BY ANY MEANS behaving according to their social norms. They are reactionary extremists. They are an incredibly small cross-section of ( allegedely ) Islamic society. Where do you get off declaring the entire Islamic world 'twisted' etc simply because of the actions of some reactionaries?

The terrorism isn't about economics, imperialism, capitalism or anything else the left like to apologize to the terrorists for.

I'm not apologising for anyone. I'm simply pointing out the double-standards the western world seems happy to live with.

The Al Qaeda brand of terrorism is simply about xenophobia.

Oh bullshit. It's about making a statement. It's about saying to the world, "You continue to abuse our people, and you will continue to get more of this". It's reactionary. Take away what they're reacting to, and they will disappear too. I would, however, say that OUR brand of state-sponsored terrorism is based on xenophobia.

Re:As it breaks...

[Brandybuck]

Whose twisted social norms.

The terrorists' twisted social norms, of course. Do you have problem comprehending English?

It's our twisted social norms that bought about the situation.

While we certainly exaccerbated the situation in adminstrations past, that's still no excuse to strap a bomb to your chest and blow yourself up in a crowded mall.

We officially invaded Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, based on what was known to be a lie.

Are you implying that there was no terrorism before the invasion? Are you saying that Al Qaeda wasn't a terrorist organization before the invasion? Are you saying no one ever strapped a bomb to the chest and pulled the cord on a crowded bus before the invasion?

Where do you get off declaring the entire Islamic world 'twisted' etc simply because of the actions of some reactionaries?

Now I know you can't comprehend English, because I said no such thing. You've passed beyond the veil of rationality and I must cease conversing with you because it has become pointless.

Re:As it breaks...

[vandan]

The terrorists' twisted social norms, of course.

Sound like double standards to me. But I suspect this analysis is lost on you.

Do you have problem comprehending English?

Not at all. I was seeing if you could comprehend my point re: double standards. Clearly you cannot. Do you have a comprehension problem?

Are you implying that there was no terrorism before the invasion? Are you saying that Al Qaeda wasn't a terrorist organization before the invasion? Are you saying no one ever strapped a bomb to the chest and pulled the cord on a crowded bus before the invasion?

That's a very immature argument to be taking up. I'm clearly not saying that there was no terrorism before the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq is but one example of would clearly drives people towards terrorism. Can you not understand this? Can you only comprehend complete opposites, ie Iraq caused ALL terrorism, vs Iraq has nothing to do with ANY terrorism. You must widen your appreciation of the world before you can make proper sense of why things happen. Your previous paragraph takes your argument no-where, and certainly does nothing for other people's appreciation of your intelligence.

Now I know you can't comprehend English, because I said no such thing.

No, no, please, not back to that argument again ... you were doing so well :)

You've passed beyond the veil of rationality and I must cease conversing with you because it has become pointless.

Oh dear. Didn't like my last point? Considering you can't handle the previous ones, I'm not surprised. Return when you have matured.

Re:As it breaks...

[vandan]

Yes, they went in against the will of the people and killed many of them in the process, but Saddam wasn't exactly the world's most compassionate man, now was he?

Don't be bought by that arguement. We were supposed to have gone into Iraq because of the imminent threat posed by Saddam's WOMD. As has been widely discussed, WOMD was the banner that the US decided on, and the UK's task was to assist 'fix' intelligence around the issue ... which they did remarkably well. Now that it's clear there were no WOMD and the fabricated 'evidence' is falling apart, our government would love us to all forget their rantings on WOMD, and instead appreciate how much of a better place the world is now that Saddam is gone. If you go around repeating this, you've turned into one of their media outlets. Regime change was never approved by any body, whether the UN, the UK, or even the USA ( officially of course ). The UN resolution which they hid behind was based on letting weapons inspectors in to find their phantom WOMD. They complied, but the US couldn't accept this ( alterior motives ), and jumped the gun. Legally, we have set an absolutely appalling record. Imagine if the tables were turned, and Saudi Arabia accused the US / UK / Australia of having WOMD.

Now back to the "Saddam is gone" arguement. The US & UK have been *best* buddies with Saddam for 2 decades. They have always known what he's been up to, and have given him chemical weapons, and sent US military personnel to examine the results of using them ... on Saddam's own people ... but of course you'll never hear the US adding that they provided the chemical weapons and stood back taking notes. So Saddam is gone. So fucking what? That's not what they went in for. It's the backup excuse now that the WOMD excuse has dried up. Is Iraq a better place now? I just went to a forum with Donna Mulhearn, who was a human shield in Iraq. She's been back 3 times, taking videos, doing interviews with civilians, etc. When she asked people what it was like now that Saddam is gone, their response was absolutely fucking shocking. They all long for the "good old days" when it was safe to go outside, there was electricity, you could buy petrol without queuing for 3 days, there was law and order, and their families were still alive. Not to mention all the stuff like ripping up laws over foriegn ownership of companies, resources ( oil ), media, etc. Not one of them said they were better off now.

You also have to ask yourself: who has replaced Saddam. Have a look at the local police - they're hiring ex-baathist hitmen and long-standing party members. That gives you *some* idea of the atmosphere they're trying to create. But for the icing on the cake, Allawi has widely been reported to have been a hitman himself, and has shot dead blinded prisoners as an example to his forces. Link: http://ww1.sundayherald.com/43458 Please note that I haven't linked to some obscure ultra-leftist site ... the Sunday Herald is a major paper. There are plenty more articles on the topic. So please don't go around claiming that the world is better off without Saddam. Bad as Saddam was, and gone as he is now, the world is not better off, because he's simply been replaced with another carbon copy. The US insisted.

The US & UK have good intentions

You'll never understand world politics while you have that view. The US & UK act in the interests of big business. If they appear to have good intentions, it's because they pay millions to multiple PR firms. That and the media is an extreme right-wing orgy.

And what's this cause you're talking about? I've heard of no manifesto from al Qaeda, other than bringing about the downfall of the evil west.

That's right. We've

Some updates

[EchoMirage]

Scotland Yard is reporting that it's "only" four bombings - three in the Underground, and one on a double-decker. The BBC UK has many reports, pictures, and extended coverage. Tony Blair was visibly shaken, and said that he is leaving the G8 Summit to survey the situation, but will return to the Summit, and the Summit will continue in his absense. Blair said it was "reasonably clear" there had been a series of terrorist attacks.

BBC is just reporting that "an Islamist website has posted a statement - purportedly from al-Qaeda - claiming it was behind the attacks."

Tony Blair is just preparing a second speech right now, surrounded by the other G8 leaders, saying, "We will not allow violence to change our societies or values" and "the perpetrators of today's attacks are bent on destroying human life...today's bombings will not weaken our resolve to uphold the most deeply-held principles of our societies and defeat those who would impose their fanaticism and extremism on others. We shall prevail, and they shall not."

Coordinated Attack

[rchatterjee]

This coordinated Attack during the high profile first day of the G8 summit screams of Al Qaeda's attack profile.

Re:Coordinated Attack

[Politburo]

Actually the AQ profile usually avoids attacks during large events. Granted, the G8 is up in Scotland, not down in London, but 9/11, Madrid, the Cole and the embassies were all on what would have been routine days.

Re:Coordinated Attack

[rchatterjee]

Recall the thwarted new year's bombing attempt on LAX by Al Qaeda during the millennium? While their successful attacks have previously only happened on routine days they have often targeted high profile days and events in the past.

Al Qaeda has a history of retrying hits and methods until they work, before their attack on 9/11 they had previously attempted to twice hijack and use airlines as flying bombs but were thwarted at some point before reaching their final target and I'm sure everyone recalls their original partially unsuccessful (they wanted to bring the building down) 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.

Re:Coordinated Attack

[andyt]

Actually the AQ profile usually avoids attacks during large events. Granted, the G8 is up in Scotland, not down in London, but 9/11, Madrid, the Cole and the embassies were all on what would have been routine days.

All the more reason for AQ (if they are responsible) to attack now. With the G8 summit in Scotland, most of the specialised anti-terrorism squads will be out of London, providing security for the world leaders.

This was the best time to mount a terrorist attack on London.

Slow delay.

[caluml]

Took long enough to get the story on here. Everyone asleep? No editors in UK/European timezones?

Re:Slow delay.

[Mindjiver]

This is slashdot, what did you expect?

Re:Fucking Animals

[senocular]

The war on terror is exactly why these things happen in the first place. It started with us.

Some details

[LizardKing]

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

[ynnaD]

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.

Re:Some details

[rbarreira]

60% Informative
20% Flamebait
20% Interesting

It amazes me that there are mods who would mark this as Flamebait...

Re:Some details

[mav[LAG]]

Could be an Al Qaeda member with modpoints today. They are famous for their patience in selecting the right target at the right moment...

Re:Militant Islamists Must Die

[rxmd]

They are to be eliminated. One by one of necessary or as a whole with one nuke.

Nuking London in advance surely would have prevented this. Or what location do you suggest to nuke?

Watch the Law

[FrostedWheat]

It will be interesting to see how the government reacts to this. I'm almost certain they will use this to push through laws like the ID cards and maybe even worse.

Re:Watch the Law

[ocelotbob]

Indeed. What they will fail to say, is just like 9/11, all a more stringent ID program would do is result in burnt bodies with the addition of burnt identification cards.

Re:Watch the Law

[Alien Being]

"It will be interesting to see how the government reacts to this."

My guess is that they'll connect this to Iran via Zarqawi. This time Tony leads.

Re:Watch the Law

[Anonymous Coward]

INTERVIEWER: But how will identity cards actually make us safer?
BLUNKETT: They'll have biometrics. These biometrics will all be stored in the super new reliable unpolluted secure and reliable biometric database (which will be very reliable and secure). So if someone tries to set off a bomb in a tube train he won't be able to because, erm, a biometric will jump up and hit him on the head, which wouldn't happen if we don't have these biometrics. So the thing is that with these secure biometrics and the clean secure database we'll be much safer and if anyone says otherwise they're obviously either a luddite or a paedophile. Or maybe a luddite paedophile. Have I mentioned biometrics enough? I love biometrics because biometric technology is shiny and perfect and will also stop us from being eaten by giant alien ninja attack squirrels. Can I have my medicine now?
INTERVIEWER: What are you talking about?
BLUNKETT: If you've got nothing to fear you've got nothing to hide.

Re:Watch the Law

[oolon]

People now will line up to sign up for them too. Of course if it WERE to make any difference we would need the system now not in 3 years time, seeing as all attacks were on public transport, I do think we will see Ken requiring registered Oyster cards to allow tracking of everyones journerys.

James

Re:Watch the Law

[FrostedWheat]

Chances are the person will be reported missing after a short time, so there is a relativly short list of records to compare against.

Re:Watch the Law

[purple_cobra]

John Stalker was interviewed during one of the news broadcasts and, just before being cut off, he stated that these bombs were in all probability planted by people already in the country; the subtext, as I read it, was that ID cards would not have prevented this atrocity. Very interesting that he should make that statement given that, as you say, Clarke/Blair are *bound* to use these bombings as a reason why we need the useless (for us) things. I'm disheartened by the Shadow Home Secretary's statement that "the Opposition will stand behind the Government's choices" (paraphrased), implying that they would support any draconian measure the Government concoct.
What interesting times we live in. :|

Re:Watch the Law

[TobascoKid]

I'm not sure. If they do try and promote ID cards out of this, the question will be raised of how, exactly, would ID cards have stopped what happened this morning, and the the truth that it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference would come out. Then the questions of how much it would cost and how maybe that money would be better spent on more police and intelligence services.

Re:Watch the Law

[Tom]

Absolutely.

When something bad happens, and you put in countermeasures, and then it happens again, there are two possible replies:

a) "Apparently what we did didn't work, so we need to try something else."

b) "Obviously, we didn't do enough of what we did, we must do more of it, much more."

It's clear what Blair and Bush will be saying. I wonder if there's someone on some other government with both the smarts and the courage to choose the other option.

Re:Watch the Law

[Tesla Tank]

Maybe somewhere along the line of this?

Just look at the poor lady on the left. She's half scared to death! I don't care what the situation is, having a military personnel on a public transit is NOT good! What's that you say? We're trying to STOP terrorism? Because from where I'm standing, having a soldier with a huge fucking gun pointing at people is very intimidating. If this is how the government is reacting, I'd say the terrorist's mission is accomplished.

Re:Watch the Law

[danila]

He-he. The whole point of organising a medium-scale terrorist attack in your capital is to make people think irrationally. The constant barrage of "news" footage is supposed to create an irrational fear (as defined in psychology) of terroristm. Blinded by this fear people are supposed to accept everything they are told, even the obvious lies, such as "Saddam organised 9/11" and "British people need national ID cards in order to be safe".

Fuck you, man.

[James A. D. Joyce]

I'm from London and I appreciated it. Stop trying to stamp out humour just because of a few explosions.

Re:Fuck you, man.

[northcat]

I noticed a different reaction to jokes about 9/11, especially during the first few days after it. Jokes seem to be accepted more when the even hasn't happened in US - some jokes acceptable when it happens in England and even more jokes acceptable when it happens in south-east Asia.

Re:Fuck you, man.

[dajak]

I'm from London and I appreciated it. Stop trying to stamp out humour just because of a few explosions.

It was a famous Londoner that once said:

Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly

If we lose our sense of humour just because of a few mass murders, the terrorists will have won.

Any news?

[BenjyD]

- Channel 4 is saying there might have been an incident at South Kensington: can anyone confirm that?
- Anyone in Brighton know why they've closed the station there as well?

Re:Any news?

[VoiceOfDoom]

I think they probably closed Brighton because it is a nice fat juicy target that has been the site of bombings before.

Re:Any news?

[PeteDotNu]

I believe that these are both related to suspect packages. Naturally, these are going to be treated with a lot more caution than they would on any other day.

Re:Any news?

[BenjyD]

I guess they're probably a bit jumpy in Brighton about terrorist bombs on a normal day.

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

Clever

[BigBadBus]

Whomever did this was very clever. If you look at a map of the London underground/subway, the bombs have taken out all the tube lines in Central London. In effect, the transport network has been crippled.

Re:Clever

[BigBadBus]

True, but they also timed the attacks so that anyone emerging from a closed tube station would want to use the buses. Its amazing only one bus was bombed (by a suicide bomber, according to Sky).

Re:Clever

[VdG]

Not all that clever. The tube network is so complex that there are loads of places which will affect multiple lines. If they'd planned it on that basis they'd have gone for Waterloo or maybe Embankment, and Earl's Court. Paddington, too, as that's where the express line to Heathrow runs from, plus being a major railway station serving the whole of the Thames valley and points West.

But really, any incident is going to impact the whole Tube network.

From the first reports I saw it looks like all of the bombs were on the Hammersmith and City line, which would suggest a team moving through from one end to the other.

If they'd been really smart they'd have done it a few days ago, before the IOC met.

Re:Clever

[Toby_Tyke]

To be honest, if it had been one bomb, on one line, the whole network would probably still have been shut down.

Re:Clever

[BigBadBus]

Yes, I know, but with trains derailed and damaged, and one train trapped in a tunnel at Kings Cross, it means that the network is shut down on some lines indefinitely. Its not just a matter of re-starting the trains when the alert is over.

Re:Clever

[Dilaudid]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but they forgot the east london line. Easy to do...

I'd be interested if anyone else with a knowledge of London can fathom the choice of locations... * Bank, Liverpool St., Moorgate are the heart of the financial district * Edgware Road is a strange choice - it's known as a centre for the Lebanese community * Russell Square is another weird choice choice - it's where lots of students live. And not a lot else...

Re:Clever

[Wolfbaine]

Further to this, they've carried it out at the time of the G8 summit, when 10000 police officers were diverted from the London area to control protesters at Gleneagle.

What's interesting this time is that it seems that these weren't suicide attacks, and that the bombers have so far escaped to attack again. This parallels the situation in Madrid, where al-Qaeda bombings may have changed the election results.

Certainly the economic damage is just beginning, as stock markets across Europe have taken a dive and the London transport system is offline.

Re:Clever

[Malicious]

Here's a Map

Aldgate East and Liverpool Street are on the Middle right hand side.
Russell Square and King's Cross tube stations are in the center to the right.
Edgware Road tube station is on the middle left.
Those are the locations according to this news post.

Re:Clever

[Malicious]

Here is a Wikipedia map with all the locations of assumed bombings.
Some which are closer together have been assumed to be the same explosion, reported from multiple points along the tube.

Re:Clever

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Why is it people use "very clever" when they spot the most trivial of strategies? Underestimating the enemy is the biggest mistake you can make. The people who carried out the attacks may have lived in London for years before it happened and may have been as familiar with the public transport as anyone else who lived there. They may even have been Londoners recruited in London.

Re:Clever

[learn fast]

There will probably be more accurate versions later, but here is such a map

Re:Clever

[Hieronymus Howard]

To be honest, if it had been a small flurry of snow, the whole network would probably have shut down.

Don't laugh - it happened a couple of years ago.

Re:Clever

[Larry Lightbulb]

If the bombs were timed then it's possible there was no target location, as you can't be totally sure where a tube train is going to be. And the one on the bus could have been intended for the tube but was delayed and detonated in the wrong place.

Re:Clever

[Larry Lightbulb]

Nothing out of the ordinary there - if you're on a tube and it's delayed you'll try to use a bus for the rest of the journey. So far there's no evidence that the bus bomb was an intentional suicide bomber.

Re:Clever

[aslate]

No, they didn't take out all the lines. See this map:
London Bomb Map

They affected 3 or 4 lines, missing the Bakerloo, Northern, Central and Jubilee lines, some of the most major lines.

Although one line would be enough to shut the network, they've not screwed the most major lines for the future. Remarkably, trains are running pretty normally in the suburbs of London, my route home (The train goes into the City) was fine.

Re:Clever

[Nasarius]

Why is it people use "very clever" when they spot the most trivial of strategies? Underestimating the enemy is the biggest mistake you can make.

Just so. This is why I have to laugh whenever anyone suggests racial profiling at airports. Do they really think it's so hard for Arab terrorists to think of finding one white guy to help smuggle something past security? They're not stupid.

The people who carried out the attacks may have lived in London for years before it happened and may have been as familiar with the public transport as anyone else who lived there.

Or maybe they just took a look at a map and spent a day scouting it out. There are a huge number of attacks that could be easily pulled off if you have some explosives and are willing to risk getting caught. Leaving a bomb on a train/bus is a very old trick, and sadly still highly effective.

Re:Clever

[ear1grey]

A small merc however, the locations also benefitted some of the victims. The first bomb was very close to the city's major trauma unit. The Major Incident Plan was immediately put into action so doctors, nurses and other first aiders were on the scene very quickly - the first ambulances were dispatched within minutes of the blast. The last bomb (the one on the bus) was detonated outside a meeting of the British Medical Associateion - the victims had doctors onsite the same minute. Interviewed later on the BBC one doctor said he saw more injuries in three hours today than he saw in a six months working in A&E [aka ER]. It has been suggested that the survival rate for the bus passengers would have been significantly lower without their intervention.

Re:Terrible.

[stinerman]

The GP's comment was obviously tongue-in-cheek. Notice his .sig as well as his comment history.

Re:Fucking Animals

[ElfKnight]

The "War on Terror" is a meaningless phrase used to justify anything that the US feels like doing in another country.

If you were less keen on wiping people out who disagree with you, there might be less people who disagreed with you.

And Londeners have known about terrorism for decades due to the bombing activities of the IRA - partly funded by American donations. Go figure.

Re:Terrible.

[erikkemperman]

[..] bombing random developing-world nations is probably not any sort of solution.

Sweet Jesus, does Dubya know about this?

Mod up

[ettlz]

Amen.

Lucky escape

[seddona]

I was supposed to be walking past Aldgate East this morning but was fortunately late into work. Cant belive anybody would do this!

At the moment

[Insipid Trunculance]

Central London is completely Blocked.My brother is at his office and the roads are cordoned off even for pedestrians.

The Police have just confirmed that there are a number of fatalities at Edgware road which along with Aldwych was the most seriously affected.The eyewitness reports and pictures from Tavistock Square suggest that there must be serious casualties.

Even the IRA ,when they did their worst in London , spared the innocent, they would phone in before the explosions to let the area be evacuated. The Dirty Bastards.

Re:At the moment

[Oxygen99]

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.

Re:At the moment

[farnett]

Agree completely...the IRA and any other organisation who plant explosives in public places are all as bad as each other.

I'm Irish, and I mourn the death of every person who was killed by those bastards, as do the vast majority of Irish people.

This is important, because when we look at the Islamic countries that harbour Al-Qaeda terrorists, we mustn't assume that all the people there hate us. They don't.

Please, let's start addressing the causes of these atrocities, not just the symptoms.

P.S. London, our thoughts are with you.

Re:At the moment

[ednopantz]

Not that it mattered to those blown up, but wasn't the warning botched at Omagh and moved people actually towards the target?

If I was rating shades of badness, not warning people is worse than warning them or warning them incompetently.

Re:At the moment

[Insipid Trunculance]

This just in from a mate at North Lambeth.Security is really tight and police ARE STOPPING pedestrians from walking towards Westminster bridge.

Re:At the moment

[rokzy]

if I remember correctly Omagh was so bad because the police accidentally moved people the wrong way - towards the explosion.

Re:At the moment

[kevinbr]

We need to look carrefully at what is terrorism. You are correct the IRA killed innocent civilians, as did the British soldiers for many a year in Ireland. Of course you fail to point out that the US Military also failed to warn civilians many many times before they dropped bombs on their village and killed them. Dead is dead and the sooner we stop defending this act of terrorism and codemning that act of terrorism the sooner we can diminish acts of terror that result in the innocent being killed. Cause and effect, over and over. Now days we cheer lead our military who also have no respect for innocent civlians. Any man that kills babies is a terrorist and God will not accept his attempt to get into heaven on the "collateral damage" ticket.

Re:At the moment

[dr_dank]

Even the IRA ,when they did their worst in London , spared the innocent, they would phone in before the explosions to let the area be evacuated.

Is there a special number for that?

Thank you for calling the terror-tip bombing hotline. All of our representatives are busy assisting other terrorists. Please hold and your threat will be answered in the order in which it was received. Your bombing is very important to us, so please hold the line.

Re:At the moment

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it doesn't matter very much as a bomb that kills innocent people is just as bad no matter who planted or why but just to clarify a little:

The Omagh bomb was carried out by the "real IRA" not the PIRA.. (The real IRA is made up of former members of the PIRA who did not agree with the PIRA ceasefire and hence formed their own splinter group)

The PIRA, who carried out all of the IRA attacks on the British mainland almost always did make a warning prior to attacks against civilian targets.

I believe that they did not make any warnings when bombing those pubs because they considered them to be legitamate targets as they were frequented by soldiers, not that this twisted thinking can be justified of course.

As for Warrington, that was just a complete travesty..

Re:At the moment

[gatkinso]

I would guess that would be the number of the establishment you are going to blow up....

Re:At the moment

[jesterzog]

If I was rating shades of badness, not warning people is worse than warning them or warning them incompetently.

I don't know - they all seem pretty similar to me. Expecting everything to be okay after detonating a bomb in a public place, just because there's a plan to phone in a warning, seems just about as deranged as not phoning in a warning.

Re:At the moment

[Ironsides]

Now days we cheer lead our military who also have no respect for innocent civlians.

Before making blanket statements like this, actually talk to military personel. The vast majority of the US military personel don't like making a mistake and killing civilians. It's only a few who spoil it for the rest.

What's interesting is this is the king of statement that was made about those who were drafted and sent to Vietnam. "Babykillers" among others was one of the insults used against them when they returned, Whether or not they had killed anyone.

Re:At the moment

[kevinbr]

I refered to "Military" not "soldier". Soldiers take orders. It is the policies that are flawed. We have killed too many civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq to even bother with the fig leaf of "mistake".

Sadly we have no process to try the criminal acts commited in war time as we are usually the victors and the victors define the rules and the laws.

we did indeed kill hundreds of thousands of babies in Vietnam and Cambodia, that is the harsh reality. That a few soldiers were taunted is nothing compared to the crime that was committed in the name of US citizens.

That you forget the dead babies and worry about the taunts tells me everything I need to know of the depth of your concern for dead innocent babies.

Poor Poor Soldiers.

Poor Poor Dead babies.

when I was a child we recited " sticks and stones......"

Re:At the moment

[Ironsides]

I concern myself with the living who were drafted because Lyndon B Johnson wanted a war. I concern myself with the living because those are who can be helped. The dead can wait. There is nothing that can be done for them.

As for a "few taunted soldiers", if you are in the US, go into DC sometime. Vietnam vets make up the largest group of homeless in the country.

Re:At the moment

[kevinbr]

First your grasp of History is suspect. You are trying to pin the Vietnam war in LBJ? Interesting to say theh least.

Sad that you ignore the dead. Dead babies have a story that they will never tell, dead babies decribe a world that might have been.

Go to Vietnam sometimes. Count the dead killed by B-52's who were not soldiers. Ditto for Cambodia.

Then come back and bleat about Vietnam vets being homeless.

When I lived in California I saw plenty of them up in the woods but that does not change wrong into right.

Your grasp of morality is..... priceless.

Re:At the moment

[ednopantz]

Well it strikes me that the motivation is different: killing lots of folks vs. scaring lots of folks by showing that you could have killed them if you wanted to. The latter is an attempt to recklessly threaten to kill rather than killing.

Most of the time, the warnings did mean that few people were hurt. If I had to be targeted by a terrorist group, I'd pick the IRA over al-Qa'ida, although I wouldn't invite either to dinner.

Re:At the moment

[eoinmadden]

Mod parent up.

Re:At the moment

[kevinbr]

If I had Mod points I would Mod you up. My sentiments exactly. When will we learn that our killings angers them and they kill us

Our history begins yesterday or whatever day the TV tells us history begins.

Re: Terrible.

[Black Parrot]

> > "In any case, we should bomb Mecca every time something like this happens."

> The capital of Saudi Arabia is Riyadh. All you're proposing is the random killing of random Muslism, who may or may not be Saudi (or even Arab), considering Mecca's status as a pilgrimage destination. Way to take the high road there.

At least the traditional "bomb Iraq" is off the table this time.

Re:Fucking Animals

[sa1lnr]

Londoners and all UK residents have been learning this lesson for over 30 years.

And how long...

[mangus_angus]

do you think it will be till the United States is blamed for this?

Re:And how long...

[fdiskne1]

do you think it will be till the United States is blamed for this?

Already happened. Read some of the comments on this board. It's pathetic, really.

Re:terrorists

[RobotRunAmok]

At least they didn't get planes flown into their skyscrapers. I think they are making too big of a deal about it.

Multiple bombs... coordinated attack... rush hour in a major Western city... people dead... transit systems shut down... start of the G8 conference...

And you think "they" are making too big of a deal about it?! Christ-on-a-crutch, man, what video game are you living in?

May...

[N3WBI3]

God be with those who lost loved ones today..

Its sad that something like this has to bring home the point that the pissing and moaning some of the Americans (raises hand) here do about the euros should stop for good..

Re:May...

[GypC]

Its sad that something like this has to bring home the point that the pissing and moaning some of the Americans (raises hand) here do about the euros should stop for good.

I've never considered the British "euros"... they are British, a wholly different animal.

I, for one, will continue to piss and moan about the continentals. =-)

Re:May...

[xlv]

Its sad that something like this has to bring home the point that the pissing and moaning some of the Americans (raises hand) here do about the euros should stop for good..
--
Les Francais sont des singes de capitulation qui mangent du fromage.

How about starting by changing your signature to show that you actually meant what you wrote?

Re:May...

[N3WBI3]

Thaks for pointing that out I forgot about the sig, it was always meant in jest but point taken..

Re:May...

[xlv]

Well, it was consistent with some of your previous comments and that meant you ended up on my foes list. You're removed now for "good behavior". Hopefully, you'll stick to a more rational approach (including criticism) of the european cultures instead of using tired stereotypes...

Re:May...

[N3WBI3]

Youll pardon me if (1) I dont jump for joy im off your enemy list and (2) i dont live in fear of going back on... ;)

To All Slashdotters in London

[lorelorn]

Stay safe guys. Our best wishes go with you.

Latest estimate from Kings Hospital London

[Soul_destroyed]

current estimate, 600 wounded, 20 dead, walking wounded everywhere, helicopters bringing in casualties.

Re:Fucking Animals

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

Let this be a lesson for Londoners and the rest of the world that terrorism can strike anywhere, and appeasing them will only make them stronger.

Taking them seriously by instigating overt and invasive security measures is exactly the sort of appeasment and response they want.

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 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.

Maybe 4 bombs

[Misanthropic Lycanth]

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.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

I think now is a good time to remind people that the war on terrorism could not have prevented this.

You cannot bring about peace with war.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[falemagn]

I think now is a good time to remind people that the war on terrorism could not have prevented this.

In fact, it quite possibly triggered it.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[DigitumDei]

I think the official count is at 3 train bombs and the 1 bus.

My company is streaming Sky News on our LAN, and they seem to be changing the numbers regularly.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[1010011010]

Tell that to the Islamic Holy Warriors

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[CmdrGravy]

Yes, a lot of the eye witness reports were from Kings Cross, Aldgate and stations in between which are all on the same line so I suspect there was one explosion near Aldgate which everyone else heard as a loud band in the other stations down the line. I am basing this off the London Tube map though so I don't know how far it is between these stations in reality.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Scrameustache]

I think now is a good time to remind people that the war on terrorism could not have prevented this.

DID not prevent this.
The war is ongoing, and with the full participation of the affected country. It's not even a question of "could", it's an established fact.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Loco3KGT]

Excellent point.

I'm so glad the first Gulf War and WWII were ended by a round table discussions.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[falemagn]

I know it shouldn't be me the one saying this, but what exactly there is that can be deemed "trolling" about my previous message?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[woginuk]

I think now is a good time to remind people that the war on terrorism could not have prevented this.

I agree totally. However, I would like to remind people that the war on terror possibly prevented many more such incidents.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[toggles]

Does anyone here remember who won the war on drugs? I can't seem to find the score anywhere...

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ArsSineArtificio]

I'm so glad the first Gulf War and WWII were ended by a round table discussions.

After the US and Britain's ruthless and unprovoked attack on Mussolini's Italy, anyway. There was no proof that Italy was in any way involved with either the invasion of Poland or the attack at Pearl Harbor.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[DigitumDei]

Actually, advance science, stop our reliance on crude oil, and then just leave them the fuck alone.

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

[Cat_Byte]

I think now is a good time to remind people that the war on terrorism could not have prevented this.
Read about why they did this. It was in retaliation for roles in Afghanistan partly. Sept 11 prompted the destruction of the terrorist camps there. Thousands of people in the same organizations that live to blow up innocent people were taken out. I think quite a few were stopped since obviously...they are dead.

Most importantly, I must point out talking to the terrorists would not have prevented this either. You can't explain to them that Afghanistan was prompted by the terrorists themselves and nothing was done about them for years even though governments knew about them until they killed thousands of innocent people. Leaving them alone was the worst thing to do.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid moderators who think that any controversial statement is made simply to get a rise out of someone else. They don't seem to be able to conceive of the fact that there really are different opinions and that people really do think differently than themselves, and that posting an opinion that differs from the officially sanctioned /. stance might possibly be legitimate and not an attempt to spin soneone up.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet my Grandfather was fighting them in Africa, not Italy. Italians were helping Germany's war efforts in Africa.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[VikingDBA]

People are dead. Others are injured. Families are grieving. and your using this to make a political point. Perhaps our sympathy and prayers would be more appropriate right now.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[R1ch4rd]

> You cannot bring about peace with war. Haven't you heard: "WAR IS PEACE", Orwell 1984

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[tehshen]

The met police site (if you can get to it) confirms four:

There are four confirmed sites where police are dealing with reported explosions this morning. These are:

1) Russell Square and King's Cross underground
2) Moorgate, Aldgate, and Liverpool Street underground
3) Edgware Road underground
4) Tavistock Square, where there has been a confirmed explosion on a bus.

We cannot at this stage confirm the number of those injured, though casualties are multiple. There are believed fatalities but again numbers are not confirmed.We are also asking members of the public not to contact police at this stage
unless it is a genuine emergency.

The BBC is still reporting seven.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[MartinG]

the war on terrorism could not have prevented this.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not.

But, it does confirm that we should have gone into Pak. to get Osama and Saudia Arabia for the kooky clerics preaching terrorism against us.

But, instead there was that Personal Vendetta Bush needed to clear up, plus, install US oil companies in Iraq.

We could have tried to cut our energy consumption and not needed Arabic oil. Then we could have gone after the Arabian kooks.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[BigDogCH]

True, but lets not include Iraq in "the war on terror". According to the U.S. state department, Iraq was the only county in the middle east which did NOT have any al Qaeda connections. Although I suppose they do now, so I guess we have turned it into a "war on terror". Oh yeah, and lets not forget that we could have killed al Zarqawi in the past, because we knew right where he was and we had had him cornered. This was not our agenda however, so we let him live.

I would also like to point out that a "War" is often defined as clashing armies, or states, or coilitions. Not generally civilians. You cannot have a "war" on terror. War simply spreads more terror. If a people are being oppressed (from their prespective, not ours), they will spread terror against their oppressors. A man is the most dangerous when you take away his hopes and dreams, and from their perspective this is exactly what we have done (I am sure I stole that quote from somewhere). Lets not forget that only one nation has ever used a Nuclear Bomb during warfare, and it was used on civilians, TO SPREAD TERROR!

At least the polls are starting to show that Americans have started to figure out that Bush is evil, however it is too bad it took this long! Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Predius]

Where are my mod points when I need them? Not only are people injured, but some are still stuck in the tubes underground. When everyone is accounted for, THEN you putzes can start your pseudo-intellectual 'banter' over politics.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

You're conflating the current "War on Terrorism" with opposition to terrorism. The two aren't the same. There are many of us who feel that terrorist need to be opposed but that the current approach is precisely the least effective way to accomplish it.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[GypC]

They don't hate us for meddling. They hate us for being infidels. Don't you listen to what the people who want to kill you are saying?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[NoTheory]

After the US and Britain's ruthless and unprovoked attack on Mussolini's Italy, anyway. There was no proof that Italy was in any way involved with either the invasion of Poland or the attack at Pearl Harbor.

This is not analogous. There was not, and has never been, any link between Al Qaeda, the perpitrators of 9/11, and Saddam Hussien's Baathist regime. There -was- an internationally recognized alliance between Italy and Germany, as well as a clear paper trail of cooperation.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[colinrichardday]

Sympathy yes, but what we need is less prayer and more thought.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[PopCulture]

Leaving them alone was the worst thing to do.

no- i disagree. Invading Iraq (no connections to 9/11, Al-Quada) was the worst thing to do. This administration losing focus on afghanistan and Bush telling the nation that he didn't care about Osama Bin Laden was the worst thing to do. Spreading our military so thin to fight a pointless war in Iraq that destabilized the entire region, and let Iraq become an open border den of terrorist activity, with extremists pouring in from nearly every country in the region was the worst thing to do.

claiming a "war on terror" with no tangible goal, no exit strategy, no fundamental way to achieve victory was the worst thing to do.

And we never really left "them" alone. Who is "them" anyway? Every single militant group who threatens us? there's probably tens of thousands of "those". Al Zarquawi had NO ties to Al-Quada untill we invaded Iraq... we are creating enemies faster than we can kill them.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Fragglebabe]

I wish I had mod points right now. Well said, and I would like to second your point. I live in London, and I take the buses and the tubes all the time. This has hit me very close to home, and though everyone i know is alright, i really wish that everyone here would stop talking about the war on terror.

It's a very difficult time for everyone in London, and I hope sincerely that no more explosions happen, and that the death and injury count is as small as possible. I hope that the perpetrators know that we won't let them win. My greatest sympathies go out to the victims and their families.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Nyago]

Oh please, then what triggered 9/11? War. The US attacked places bin Laden cared about. It doesn't justify his actions but it does appear to be the motivating factor.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Eccles]

Nonsense.

The BBC quotes a website claiming responsibility:
"Nation of Islam and Arab nation: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters. [...]
We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused."

Not a d---ed thing about infidels.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

america's astoundingly arrogant foreign policy?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[rbochan]

I agree totally. However, I would like to remind people that the war on terror possibly prevented many more such incidents.

I agree totally. However, I would like to remind people that the war on terror possibly had about as much chance of preventing corns from developing on my feet.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Shakrai]

After the US and Britain's ruthless and unprovoked attack on Mussolini's Italy, anyway. There was no proof that Italy was in any way involved with either the invasion of Poland or the attack at Pearl Harbor.

Ruthless and unprovoked? Gee, maybe it had something to do with Italy's declaration of war on France after the Germans invaded. Or perhaps it was the fact that Italy was attempting to conquer North Africa?

Are you that ignorant of history or HIBT?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[RavenSlay3r]

Fight and you may die; run, and you'll live....at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now; Would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom! ---William Wallace

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[SPSTech]

"You cannot bring about peace with war."

Peace by definition is the absence of conflict. Tell that to Hawaii, Japan, Germany, France, Great Britain and anyone else that has been through a war in the last few centuries. War stopped Hitler and the Japanese, it stopped Hussein from completely devouring Kuwait.

I'm not a war-monger but sometimes you have to step up and defend by going on the offense. By eliminating or severely crippling your enemy you restore peace. I don't think we have any military conflict with Japan or Germany right now nor does anyone else.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[oolon]

It probably did, while to do believe the war in Iraq was a mistake, I do feel the attack on Afganistan was not a mistake, and an appropriately tough response after 911. If Iraq had never happened, the UK would still have been labeled as a target for the support for the invasion of Afganistan, so I don't think this was avoidable, and I do live in London so do care about not being bombed!

James

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[RichardX]

Typically, my modpoints expired unused yesterday, but I just wanted to say this is one of the best posts I've seen on Slashdot in quite a while.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Cat_Byte]

Why do people not count Hussein as a terrorist? How many hundreds of thousands of murders do you have to commit before people think you're a bad guy these days? Chemical weapons, torture, murder, mass graves, invading a neighboring country then burning the oil fields as he left...the list goes on and on. He was a terrorist.

And if the polls are showing people thinking Bush is "evil" I'm losing faith in the mindset of the left even more than ever. Just because you're not under attack on home ground and don't hear people running and screaming is no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[letxa2000]

Ok, I'm all ears. What approach do you advocate?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[i_like_spam]

I agree totally. However, I would like to remind people that the war on terror possibly prevented many more such incidents.

But, isn't equally possible that the 'War on Terrorism' contributed to this and the Madrid incidents?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[jacksonj04]

BBC News

Has the most up to date information I can find.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[bombadillo]

Good point. London has a huge east Asian population. Their are also racial tensions between these minorities and the native English people. I am American but I lived in london back in 2001 and 2002 and was surprised by the tension as the U.S. doesn't have that tension with the East Asian population. I felt that the tension was probably greater than the current racial issues in the U.S. I could easily see how troubled young muslims could be easily swept up into a terror organization in England. The racial tensions, economic status of immigrants in the U.K. and current events in Iraq make for fertile grounds for extremists.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[TrappedByMyself]

War. The US attacked places bin Laden cared about. It doesn't justify his actions but it does appear to be the motivating factor.

I'm thinking hard, but who did the US ATTACK that bin Laden cared about?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ka9dgx]

Amen, Brother.

The moderation system is better than Anarchy, but leaves lots of room for improvement.

--Mike--

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[shish]

Me sitting in front of my computer being sympathetic does nothing to help anyone. Politics can stop this situation getting worse, and it can stop things like this happening again. Given the choice between being emotional and getting nothing done, or being "cold" and saving future lives, I'd go for the latter.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[tundog]

I agree totally

I totally disagree. Have you stopped to consider that the UK probably wasn't even on the Al-Quada (sp?) radar until the US/UK invaded Iraq and made it a hot bed of terrorist activity where none previously existed???

One could argue that the (badly applied) war on terror (i.e. Sadam is a bad man) was actually the catalyst for this attack. This is a prime example of how the 'War on Terror' has made citizens of civilized countries less safe.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Momoru]

Leaving them alone would not end attacks like this. Take the Bali bombings for example...Indonesia, Phillipines and Egypt have been attacked...what did they ever do to provoke the terrorists? Even if the Islamic world suddenly loved us Terrorism wouldn't end...either from domestic terrorists (IRA, Tim McVey, etc..). Or Greenpeace, or someone else. Its impossible to be involved in World Affairs without pissing someone off royally.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[enosys]

I think that Britain's involvement in Iraq triggered this. Spain already was attacked in a simillar way over its involvement in Iraq.

Some people say the war in Iraq is a part of the war on terrorism but it's actually something else. It has mainly helped terrorists by pissing off more people and providing an unstable country which can be used as a base.

The war in Afganistan and internal security measures can be helpful against terrorism, and I don't remember any large attacks in retaliation for that.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[pickled doughboy]

I think now is a good time to remind people that the war on terrorism could not have prevented this. You cannot bring about peace with war.

You cannot bring about peace by sticking your wuss-ass head in the sand either. That just makes a better target out of you backside...

Look how good being pacifist has worked in the past:

Pearl Harbor

France in general

heck, if everyone wouldn't have sat on their hands for so long, WWII might not have been needed in the first place!

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[bombadillo]

Not sure if you are familiar with London. But it has a huge immigrant population from East Asia. Their is a pretty good amount of Racial tension between native English and East Asians.

Muslim Imigrants in a lower economic class, Racial tension, Current events in the middle east....

I don't think I have to tell you that those conditions make extremists.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Various Assortments]

Unless the people discussing it are rescue workers standing around instead of doing their job, the discussion will have no effect on the dead, the survivors, or the grieving.

It seems to me that you're trying to use shame/guilt to silence a free discussion.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[mikael]

You need the random security policy generator/predictor

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Entropius]

They're trying to kill all of the terrorists. That's the current plan, at least, but it's not working very well.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[woginuk]

And please remind me who is oppressing whom in the Middle East or other muslim countries such as Sudan, Somalia, Indonesia etc.? Is it America? Or UK?

As for the nuclear bomb, I was watching a documentary the other day and one of the veterans of the war said that the use of the nuclear weapons saved hundreds of thousands of lives. The argument was that since the Japanese considered it a dishonour of the highest degree to surrender they would continue fighting till the last man was killed. And the allies would have no option but to keep fighting them.

Bush may not be the brightest bulb around but he has sure got this one right.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[da]

References? I absolutely disagree with you. I'd love to show you references that support my point of view but I can't find anything on Google (alright, not a foolproof research methodology, but...) that purports to be terrorists claiming anything either way, but anything I consider to be a sensible analysis has made the point that 9/11 was apparently in retaliation for US involvement in Saudi Arabia. The only people I've heard making statements like the above "They hate us for being infidels", (or you may remember "They hate freedom"..?) are western politicians. You believe them, I don't. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[StalinsNotDead]

We should just give up the space program

You forgot giving up bacon & beer. Both of which are more important than the space program.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Ender_Wiggin]

They're not being Islamic, and they're not Holy. Did you notice that every major Islamic organization so far has condemned and distanced themselves from those groups?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[cyberbob2010]

"Oh please, then what triggered 9/11?"


maybe our support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip? we have given the Israeli's millions of dollars AND weapons and aircraft. what have we given the people whos land we took to give to them? several hundred thousand dollars and no protection from a military who has killed thousands of palistinian children.

think about it - if 10 or 20 years ago an american hellicopter came in and blew up your dad or your uncle or your brother or your friend you'd be pissed wouldn't you. Lucky for you, you're American. You will most likely never have to experience someone coming onto your soil and accidentally killing your friends and/or family because they had to shove their nose where it didnt belong. Unfortunately, this new "war on terror" in a nation that never once supported bin laden (in fact, bin laden HATED hussein) and who never once threatened or attacked any US citizen outside of their own country - is creating the next generation of terrorist. Look at the children you see in the news footage now - we are killing their big brothers, fathers and uncles, and because of it - your child may be stuck fighting them in the next war.

I'm not saying that they are right in what they do . All I'm saying is that perhaps we should pick the stick from our own eye before we attempt to pick the splinter from theirs.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Kirth]

Why do people not count Hussein as a terrorist?

Bacause he isn't, by definition. He was a tyrant, an opressor, a dictator, and so on. But terror from the side of the state is not called terrorism.

no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.

So? I see him as responsible for an upsurge in new terrorists because of his actions. I see him as responsible for violating civil liberties, responsible for violating constitutional rights, responsible for turning a republic into a proto-fascist state. And I do consider this evil.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[brontus3927]

Because, by definition, a terrorist is someone who acts outside of a governmental authority. Saddam Hussein wasthe government in Iraq. As such he cannot be a terrorist. Other definitions apply, but not terrorist

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:Terrorist

Use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets.
http://www.careerjournaleurope.com/columnists/styl eandsubstance/glossary.html

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[DigitumDei]

Lets see, (1937) massing armies controlled by their respective goverments VS (2005) independent groups of terrorists not bound to any one country; fueled, not by nationalistic ambition, but pure blind hatred.

Yea thats a fair comparison...

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Eccles]

16/05/1940

Churchill urges Mussolini not to become involved in the war.

10/06/1940

Italy declares war on Britain and France, effective from the 11th June 1940.

11/06/1940

Italian aircraft bomb Malta.

20/06/1940

German troops capture Lyons and the vital port of Brest in Brittany. French envoys drive behind German lines to receive armistice terms. Italian forces begin an offensive along the Riviera coast into France.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Entropius]

Nobody's proposing "joining hands and singing kumbaya", as you ignorantly put it, on *any* side of this issue.

And war isn't the only situation. Look at the issues surrounding the creation of this country (hint: our first government didn't work, we had to scrap it and start again); look at the independence of India and numerous other colonies; look at the trade disputes between Japan, the US, and the EU that pop up all the time.

Wars make history books, but problems can be solved by means other than war.

To present war and "singing kumbaya" as the only two means of problem-solving, with nothing in between, is a rather poor attempt at a typical hawk straw-man argument.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[stuntpope]

The USA didn't attack Saudi Arabia. It was the US (infidel) presence in (holy) Arabia that Bin Laden specifically mentioned in his pre-9/11 declaration of war against the USA.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[1010011010]

Another "troll"? Geez.

Tell that to the Islamic Holy Warriors

Let the Wahabbist Saudis now while you're at it

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ryanov]

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)

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[NeuroAcid]

Actually, advance science, stop our reliance on crude oil, and then just leave them the fuck alone.

Well we did that already. They had an entire country, Afghanistan, and they weren't happy with that. They wanted more.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[FecesFlingingRhesus]

You god dammed, leftist, commie, hippies need to get out of your parents basement and get a clue and most of all stop using this event as a forum to expound you ill informed and illogical views. Now, I am not saying that I agree with the measures that have been taken to stop the violence but this is neither the time nor place to puke up your garbage. Rather the correct and polite thing to say is:

Thank you Brittan for standing with us in theses dark times whether right or wrong and we greave for you loss. You are true friends and have stood by us as an ally, you remember our losses in your great wars and now we remember yours in our war.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[jedigeek]

Your comments about the Japanese are quite simply ignorant, and nuking civilian targets was utter madness. It wouldn't have been that hard to use the bombs on actual military targets, yet people still seem to think America was in the right bombing their cities.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[woginuk]

Like what places? Bosnia?

I thought 9/11 occurred because bin Laden did not like the presence of US soldiers in Saudi Arabia who were stationed there at the request of the Saudi government to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam. At least that's been the official al-Qaeda line.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Capt James McCarthy]

While you are throwing out "facts" BigDogCH, don't forget that Clinton had a wonderful opportunity to kill or capture bin Laden and passed on it out of fear of what it would do to his reputation. There's plenty of blame to go around. Please stop asking for my sympathy and understanding for the individuals who are committing these acts.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[flubbergust]

People are also angry and are trying to make some sense into this big giant mess. I understand why people are trying to point a finger and give the blame to someone.
I guess that everyone is grieving in their way. My way is with anger and frustration at those that said that they wanted to protect (Bush for example) us and that they had a way to fight the terrorist, which clearly they don't.

I don't think you find many here that doesn't give their sympathy to the families of those who have died and I don't think you find many that doesn't pray in their own way to those in hospitals fighting for their lives. I admit, I cried today for those that died. Its a sad day indeed.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Guignol]

No, thats not the reason.
Just like you don't hate them for their religious grounds and seemingly antique view on philosophy.
It just makes it easier to hate them because of this "obvious nonsense" (for one particular point of view).
But would you hate that much amazonian tribes with weird religious beliefs and prehistoric practices ?
I don't think s. however, if they were to suddenly rely on some of your properties to the point they'd be compelled to push you, maybe make you poor as a side effect if they are powerful enough.
But it would just be a side effect of their way of life !
Now would you hate them for believing in whatever they believ in or for interefering with you in believing so ?
but wouldn't it be much easier to hate them because of those weird belifs instead of because of those 'side effects' ?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ArsSineArtificio]

Are you that ignorant of history or HIBT?

Perhaps you are being literal-minded.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[mr100percent]

Yes, I actually did listen to their speeches, and guess what? They don't hate you for not being a part of their religion, they hate you for meddling in their country. From Bin Laden's speech prior to the US election:

...This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example..... We fought you because we are free and do not accept injustice. We want to restore freedom to our nation. (Emphasis mine)

Not that I agree with him or anything.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[danheskett]

Osama bin Laden took a hating to the US when the Saudi Royal family allowed US forces into Saudi Arabia to fight Hussein in round 1 of the Gulf War. The bin Laden family is like the Kennedys or Rockafellas in Saudia Arabia, and Osama is the black sheep (Osama's father reportedly described the mother as his least favorite concumbine). Osama was expelled from the Kingdom after his complaintants that the ruling family did not adhere to Wahabisim close enough. He believe them to be guilty of apostacy, a serious crime to bin Laden. Osama's fundamental gripe is that the Kingdom let infidels - including women - use the holy land as a staging ground to fight another Arab state. Till this time bin Laden and the King Saud and his handlers were strongly anti-Iraq because of the secular nature of Hussein's Baathist regime. bin Laden was not a big fan of Kuwait at all since it is heavily westernized and pro-West. Quite clearly, much of the rage against the US is on account of the intervention in the first Gulf War.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[BigDogCH]

War is not waged between people, it is waged betwen governments. It is sick attitudes like this, of people deserving to die, that cause terror to begin with. Do you believe the German and Japanese people started the war? Could you for 1 moment consider that maybe the war would not have happened if the German and Japanese governments had been different? Start reading about history and how governments brainwash their citizens into following their wishes. Try reading about the current situation in the education system in N. Korea. Please, educate yourself, this is the only way to stop this ignorant thought process.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ArsSineArtificio]

Bush may not be the brightest bulb around but he has sure got this one right.

And, like many of us, after you add up the "got this one right" column, you start to rethink the "not the brightest bulb" part.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Ubergrendle]

I understand the point you're trying to make... Poland got f*cked over as did most of the rest of Eastern europe, and there was the Cold War which resulted in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam War, etc

However..

Europe has been almost war-free for over 60 years. It wasn't a perfect ending to WWII, but it was a heck of alot better than the centuries before or even the end result of WWI. I would not consider the Yalta Conference a failure given the circumstances.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Eccles]

Look how good being pacifist has worked in the past: [...] France in general

When?

The French had more soldiers killed in World War II than the U.S. did. Their generals and military doctrine may have been awful, but it wasn't pacifistic.

http://www.fathersforlife.org/hist/wwiicas.htm

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Zeinfeld]

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.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[halter-da-man]

Agreed that Hussein is not the most pleasent man ever, and probably should be shot, but when you use the whole "gassing his own people" thing, you also have to look at where the technology for that came from, namely the United States in the 80's. And if you look to all the corrupt and evil heads of state the US has propped up over the past half century, this is really a double standard that Saddam is being held to. And furthermore, if you've been reading the news lately from Iraq, corruption is up in most of the government, and many people are actually worse off. While Saddam certainly was bad news for Iraq, dropping thousands of tons of bombs on their country was probably worse.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Insipid Trunculance]

What US has done in the Iraq is known in the technical circles as Shooting oneself in the foot.

While Saddam Hussain is a master terroriser , he was one of the few despots in the Arab world who was active against Al Queda and its ilk.So far from reducing the hot spots that breed terrorism , invading Iraq and removing Saddam has actually increased the number of countries the terrorists could shelter in.

Remember , Saddam's Iraq was relatively Secular. In that part of the World , the tribe was dominant over the religion.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Thomas Miconi]

Read about why they did this. It was in retaliation for roles in Afghanistan partly.

And you fscking believe them ? That's just the propaganda they spout to pretend that their actions do have a justification - which they don't.

I think quite a few were stopped since obviously...they are dead.

Indeed. So why did we have to send them so many more recruits to brainwash, train and use against us (and anyone who doesn't obey them, western or moslem alike) by invading Iraq ?

You can't explain to them that Afghanistan was prompted by the terrorists themselves and nothing was done about them for years even though governments knew about them until they killed thousands of innocent people.

Of course you can't. But you could have tried to explain it to the rest of the ~1B Moslems out there. Which we didn't.

Instead we turned a bunch of fanatics into a global political force by invading an unrelated Moslem country, thereby lending credence to their braindead propaganda (at least to uneducated people with little access to medias - comments on sites such as asharqalawsat.com indicate that most educated people, even though they don't like the US, do not fall for the fanatics' BS. So there's hope after all).

America refused to accept that the world is more complex than a Bruce Willis movie and that no, sometimes beating up bad guys won't solve all your problems. If the US don't reassess their strategy quickly (as it seems they're doing by having contacts with non-Al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq), we will all going to suffer the consequences.

Thomas-
PS: I'm a Frenchman living in Britain. So maybe I shouldn't have used 'we'. Except in the last sentence, of course, because we know well enough that the fanatics will use their newfound power against us as well.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[CrayzyJ]

Ignore the problem and hope it goes away?

GREAT strategy. Reagen should have taken care of Iraq when he had the chance.

Invading Irag the worst thing to do? HA. Ask the thousands that were killed by Saddam?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[m50d]

Funding Israel's random killing of everyone who actually lived there, and propping up the undemocratic saudi royal family because they gave you oil.

Besides, just because one attack wasn't triggered by a war that means wars can never trigger attacks? Computer crashes are never caused by faulty hardware, because mine crashed today and all the hardware is fine.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Itanshi]

ah i dunno, i intend to agree with chaps like you and some other anti-war 'make every sitution bend so that my gut feelings and beliefs are proven right' thoughts. I'm the same way really, but I'm also open to debate and I heard things that make me think (something i reccomend people do on a regular basis, think, reevaulate and educate themselves more than just others. anyways i heard it said 'there's two ways to fight a war on terror, at home and abroad, indirect and direct, preventative measures and counter terrorism' now then 'most keep turning to counter terrorism where people take the war to them, because in the urban sociaty, the modern means of living in todays word, the cities, thetransportation system is is all bt impossible to prevent such attacks short of complete lockdown. Th best police, security and smart cicitzens can nly do so much to prevent some of the attacks, but some will always get through short of as said, lockdown. By takeing the attack to them, we slowly dismantle their systems, sects and groups. give them a focal point of attack we can manage. also encourage other countries to crack down on such extremism in effect cutting the growth of the cancer that is terrorism' i took liberties expanding upon the man's thoughts (mixed soem other people's thought sin it too), but well, think about it, either Bush is right and we're wrong, or we're both right or we're both wrong. if we are right, we're doomed and i dun like that but if i'm right we have hope ^^ *praise Google* yes i leave this unexplained

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[interiot]

"Terrorist" isn't simply a bad guy, or at least it didn't used to be defined that way. "Terrorist" was someone who didn't have a political voice, and (at least allegedly) had no other political voice than by violence. Terrorists use asymetrical violence, guerilla warfare... they can pop up for a short while anywhere, while the US has to fight back with tanks and missiles.

The leader of a country isn't someone who isn't constantly showing up in random markets with a bomb. They may indescriminantly kill people inside their own country, but it's not to gain a political voice where they had none before (it might be to supress other political voices, but that's a different thing from ostensibly having only one option for political expression). Leaders of countries can be affected by international diplomacy, embargoes, etc... terrorists won't ever be affected at all by this kind of thing.

(yes, there are shades of gray between them, but one fundamentally already has a large amount of power that's fixed in a certain location... the other has very little power and can move anywhere... the options for dealing with them is fundementally different)

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Skjellifetti]

I like the mods on the parent. It is both insightful and flamebait. Speaking from the left, I agree that Hussein was a homocidal maniac who needed to be taken out sooner or later. But the way Bush started the war was probably illegal according to Intl law and Bush's prosecution of the war has been incredibly incompetent. I'm also not convinced that Bush is responsible for the fact that there have been no major terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. I think we've just been lucky. Those are the views that polls show the US electorate is starting to catch on to.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Foobar of Borg]

True, but lets not include Iraq in "the war on terror".

No kidding! Why can't we (U.S.) simply have a war on Al Qaeda? Even though they are obviously not a nation, they are a specific group, albeit somewhat loosely organized. If we hadn't wasted so much time in Iraq, we could have spent our resources hunting Al Qaeda. Plus, if we were simply going after Al Qaeda, I doubt we would have so much of a military recruiting problem.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[iwadasn]

There's more to the situation.

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.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[seven of five]

And no number of Londoners (or New Yorkers, or Spaniards) slaughtered will save a single impoverished Arab, either.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[SpamJunkie]

Just because you're not under attack on home ground and don't hear people running and screaming is no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.

In 2000 and earlier in 2001 his administration ignored warnings that Al Qaeda was planning something big, so the problem is he should have kept the attacks from happening for 5 years.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[m50d]

FFS, if people dying shouldn't affect politics then what the hell should?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[BigDogCH]

If you will, I never said that Clinton wasn't responsible for anything. I never mentioned him. Also, at what point did I suggest that anyone who spreads terror deserves any sympathy? No, really, find that in my post anywhere!

I never mentioned anything of the like, you simply cannot formulate a logical argument against what I have said.

Heck, look at every responce to what I wrote and you will see a VERY clear pattern. A pattern of ignorance, flaimbait, troll, and jackasses. Nobody can post a reasonable arguement, just ignorance and hatred, which isn't the solution.

If you notice, I was trying to throw blame around where it is deserved, while removing some of the ignorance from the previous posts. How is this bad, I don't know, but ignorance seems to be the sepecialty of the replies against me. Feel free to continue to argue against something I never said, and lets all see how far it gets you.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Trelane]

It wouldn't have been that hard to use the bombs on actual military targets

Nukes are not nearly that localized in effect.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ignorant_coward]

Thank god I don't have cable. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News will be running this 24/7 for the next month, along with every self-proclaimed expert and commentator on the planet, saying nothing over and over until they wonder if there is a world outside their studio worth going back to.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[FecesFlingingRhesus]

Yeah, its already available it is called biodiesel and you may be more on target than you think.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[infinite9]

Feel free to mod me as a troll, but I have to address this.

You cannot bring about peace with war.

Great, so let's all sit around hugging each other while we sing coumbaya. Maybe then the bad guys will go away. I have news for you. There are bad people in this world that will hate us no matter what we do. How do you reason with that? They don't understand diplomacy or peace rallies. They understand violence. That's the language they speak. The "War on Terror" is certainly ridiculous, but so is being an unreasonable pacifist. The only way to stop a real terrorist is to shoot him.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[vyzar]

Just been confirmed at a press conference by the emergency services that 4 devices exploded this morning - 3 on tube trains and one on a bus. At least 33 people have died.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[lawpoop]

Yes, I agree that Saddam Hussein is a terrorist. But the Bush Administration convinced Congress and the public to go to war in Iraq because of Saddams alleged ties to Al Qaida, not for what he had already done.

First off, Bush must be impeached (remember, impeachment is simply a trial -- it doesn't mean that he will be removed from office) for his administration's lies and false evidence built around the war in Iraq.

Second, there are plenty of evil dictators all around the world, and the United States doesn't have the resources to go around invading all of those countries, overthrowing their dictators, and then running them for the next decade. We are already stretched too thin in Iraq, and our administration seems to be preparing to attack Iran. This is getting to be way beyond ridiculous.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Entropius]

There were no military targets left.

We had already levelled Tokyo and most other Japanese cities. We spared Kyoto, however, for cultural reasons.

The Japanese, like everyone else, integrated military production into cities; both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had military activity in/around them.

Historians debate whether use of the bombs was necessary to force Japan to surrender, but it's rather clear that, with the intelligence the American leadership had, they thought their use was necessary.

Read about the extremely high morale of Japanese last-ditch defenses at Iwo Jima and Okinawa and the final sortie of the HIMS Yamato... ... there was an incident where a captured and severely wounded Japanese sailor grabbed a scalpel from an American surgeon preparing to save his life and killed him with it.

America had been through a long and bloody war and had scrabbled up from near defeat to a position of overwhelming superiority at sea and in the air, and had been trying to use that superiority to end the war without invading the Japanese mainland (risking a repeat of Iwo Jima on a massive scale)... and we couldn't figure out a way to do it. Hell, we levelled Tokyo, and that didn't work.

War is hell.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[DMNT]

Why do people not count Hussein as a terrorist? How many hundreds of thousands of murders do you have to commit before people think you're a bad guy these days? Chemical weapons, torture, murder, mass graves, invading a neighboring country then burning the oil fields as he left...the list goes on and on. He was a terrorist.

I disagree. Terrorist is someone who attacks civilians to spread terror to gain power. A tyrant is someone who has the power and wishes to remain in power. Terrorists want to spread fear of the unknown as tyrants want to spread fear of the known. Everyone in Iraq knew where Saddam Hussein lived, no one in the Western world knows for example where Bin Ladin lives.

Of course, one could argue that terrorist is the todays "communist", label that you give to your enemies. "If you aren't by my side, you're on the side of a terrorist."

I think George W. Bush is wrong, Al Queda doesn't hate freedom, they want the freedom. Limiting others' freedom is the way they're trying to take to gain theirs.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ignorant_coward]

Wah wah wah. The pseudo-I-care-no-I-really-do-wait-is-Judge-Judy-on -next-oh-god-I-can't-miss-this comfortably tucked far away from London soapbox gets pretty annoying, too, when these things happen.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Ender_Wiggin]

They don't care if you drink beer. Christianity allows it, and they're not going to stop you. The bigger problems are meddling foreign policy, that's what they'd like to see disappear.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[FCon4]

You cannot bring about peace with war.

And you can't earn respect by giving the bully your peanut butter and jelly sandwiches every day, either.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[1010011010]

I'm sure the Islamists and Wahabbists and Iranian Special Forces and Syrian Agents all just need a hug.

Then it'll all be better.

Hugs, everyone!

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[aicrules]

Perhaps Bin Laden himself has personal (non religious) issues against Americans and Europeans that cause him to head a terror group. However, the people who follow him do so out of a misguided fundamentalist interpretation of their religion. For 99.9% of them it has nothing to do with anything but that the US and Europe are made up of mostly Christians.

To them the "stick" in our eye is that we aren't muslim. And if you think we should take that stick out, you can go f yourself.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[nickos]

I'm not the parent poster, but it seems to me that religion is the cause of most of these problems. If we could somehow stop people believing in this crap we would stop the problem.

Oh, and it might be good if we could wean ourselves off oil so that we're not dependent on the middle east...

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[absinthminded64]

While I agree that this is a time to pay respect to those that have lost their lives and have sympathy for their loved ones that are left behind it is also a time when this event is freshest in our minds and a great time for open discussions regardless of how negative some of it may be.

A high school friend lost his life last week in Iraq and it will be very difficult to face his parents and express my condolences while grieving the loss myself. The war in Iraq has suddenly become a bit more personal for me but my beliefs and opinions have not changed as a result.

I definitely do not agree with everything that has happened over the last few years but we can't stand idly by while cowards take innocent lives in an attempt to put fear into the hearts of others.

If we live in fear they win. We can't let them win.

Vote. Never Let Bubba Jeb into office. Pay attention and choose your candidate wisely.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[FecesFlingingRhesus]

I guess Theo van Gogh was meddling in their affairs as well and was not an infidel exposing them. As well I guess Salman Rushdie is only out to get their oil. Come on guys at least offer up some evidence to your argument.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[DrXym]

I agree totally. However, I would like to remind people that the war on terror possibly prevented many more such incidents.

The "war on terror" might have, but the "war on Iraq" probably increased the chances of an attack many times over.

I suspect the vast majority of Muslims sympathised with the US and thought the Taliban had it coming to them after the WTC attacks. I also suspect that most of them changed their minds very rapidly when they saw the US invade Iraq on flimsy pretenses. If the US had stuck to Afghanistan, the chances are that terrorists would have marginalised to the point of non-existence.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[letxa2000]

Ok, now, do you have any realistic solutions?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[hcob$]

Ahem.... WWI, WWI.... k... done. And the war on terror could have stopped this if everyone would get off their self important America-is-evil-and-they-get-what-they-deserve asses and do something about these evil people who don't care who they kill...

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[thanew]

wow.. since when has ignoring a problem been the best path ? Iraq is a problem, the government funded and harbored terrorists. as for Al-Zarqawi, he had ties before we invaded Iraq (see: Colin Powells speech before the security council) and of course, you state that we "destabilized" that region.. when was it stabilized? There have been attacks way before we even "invaded" Zarqawi himself was behind a planned attack in Jordan, and wait, lets look at Israel, yea, that whole area was certainly stable.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[VikingDBA]

I really don't think a bunch of people pissin and fumin over who was right is going to do Londoners a damn bit of good. I have a strong opinion on what I think our leaders should be doing about it but this isn't the time for it. I do however, believe that prayers will have an effect and hopefully sympathy will lead to some action, even if it is only a donation to the Red Cross of something similar.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[pintomp3]

the US sure didn't have a problem with Saddam when he was at the height of his killing. we actually rewarded him by giving him more money. he became our ally when we needed a thug to fight iran for us because iran decided to take down the puppet regime we setup and replace him with someone they wanted. oh yeah, democracy. there are no clean hands here.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[douceur]

Um, he hadn't done those things since we won the Gulf War. That's the problem.

Just because you're not under attack on home ground and don't hear people running and screaming is no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.

I was calling him evil before 9/11... Don't give me that shit about keeping the attacks from happening for 4 years. He didn't keep 9/11 from happening. Strangely enough, after the one attack that did happen, we invade Iraq, the one country in the area without connections to Al Qaeda.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[mr100percent]

Obviously, the US is not oppressing the entire middle east, but the issue of Palestine and Iraq is resonating everywhere. It's in every media you look.

As for the nuclear bomb, American lives were saved, yes, but at the cost of Japanese civilians, including women and children. That I don't think I can support. My grandfather fought in WWII, but I would choose to have the war go on a few more months if it spared the lives of civilians. It's like Iraq, do you want to save the lives of American soldiers by taking action that places civilians at risk? You could say that the US military is all volunteer, while the Iraqi civilians aren't. If you could end a war by killing a bunch of innocent civilians, would you? How many would it take before it was wrong?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Manchot]

How many hundreds of thousands of murders do you have to commit before people think you're a bad guy these days?

Exactly. He was a bad guy and a dictator, but that's it. He was no threat to anyone beyond the borders of Iraq, and you know that. He had no ties to Al-Qaeda. He had no weapons of mass destruction. There's a reason that he just rolled over when we invaded: he was weak, and did not need to be invaded. There are worse dictators out there, some who were installed by the CIA.

As for Bush protecting us from terrorists for 4 years, that reminds me of a certain episode of the Simpsons. A bear goes on a rampage in Springfield, and after it is captured, Homer convinces the town to waste its money on a "Bear Patrol." He tells Lisa that because there have been no bears since it began, it must be working. An event such as 9/11 took years to plan, so even if there was another one in the works, we would have no way of knowing.

Oh yeah, and if you still believe that the administration truly believed that there were WMDs, you might want to read the contents of the Downing Street Memo, which was recently confirmed to be authentic by Blair. Don't be misled by the designation of "memo:" it's actually the official minutes of a meeting between senior British officials.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Capt James McCarthy]

It's not what you typed, but what you implied. When you place blame on one group/person, i.e. Bush/US, you absolve the other. I suppose I could have been using transference though.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[SirLanse]

Put down your beer/lager/liquor, put your women in burkas and bow down towards Mecca. Then maybe the bombings will stop, but then again the Sunnis and Shias are bombing each other. The war is over whether you can have freedom or be forced to worship Allah the way a particular sect wants you to. And whether your genes will be in the pool in the coming generations. If you don't care about these things, go ahead and protest the war.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Ender_Wiggin]

Remember when there was a war on drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore? Yeah, this war on terror is really gonna work, eh? (Get your war on)

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[BigDogCH]

Thank you for pointing this out. I appoligize for being harsh, but I was not a supporter of Clinton. Probably because I was too young to have a clue as to what was going on. I suppose though now I am implying that I currently do have a clue, which arguably isn't correct.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[mmaddox]

Sure, maybe the people aren't--in their heart-of-hearts--supportive of the actions of their governments. I ask, who then, is responsible for the actions of the government? For the very EXISTENCE of the government? If the people are brainwashed, then aren't they then AGENTS of their government? Look, the buck must stop somewhere. Unfortunately, war is terribly imprecise. If your government does something that you don't support, and you do NOTHING to counteract that government, then you are responsible. In the worst case, this means taking up arms (and its why the right to bear them was left in our Bill of Rights). If a population does not control its government, then it MUST be implicated in its government's actions, and therefore held responsible.

This is a personal soapbox issue for me, I admit. Responsibility must extend beyond personal responsibility to the realm of civic responsibility; you must control your government or it will control you. And you WILL be held accountable.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[GypC]

"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world....But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world.

"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies].... Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim." -- Ayatollah Khomeini

That's just an offhand Google search. Islamist imams' sermons are commonly full of such rhetoric.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[surprise_audit]

According to the BBC it was 4 bombs - three on tube trains and one double decker bus. Though I suppose CNN might have better information than the UK national broadcasting authority that's right there on the spot...

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Foobar of Borg]

Look how good being pacifist has worked in the past: [...] France in general

When?

The French had more soldiers killed in World War II than the U.S. did. Their generals and military doctrine may have been awful, but it wasn't pacifistic.

Plus, GP forgets the whole of WWI where millions of Frenchmen died defending France. As an aside, I've often wondered what would have happened if the U.S. had not entered WWI. The Eastern Front had collapsed on account of the Bolshevik revolution, but the Western Front was pretty much a draw before the U.S. was involved. Perhaps France and Britain would have had to finally make terms for the withdrawal of a worn-out and bled-dry (almost) Germany.

And then, to stay on the present topic at hand, there was the Treaty of Versailles. If not for the debilitating provisions in this treaty, along with things like the French invading and occupying the Ruhr Valley (no German army allowed, so they can't stop the French), Hitler would probably have lived out the rest of his days being considered a raving, blathering kook, instead of being able to take charge of Germany.

This is similar to our present problem with terrorism. A lot of our middle east policies have helped to create a situation in which Wahibism really had a chance to catch on and spread. Now that it has, we really don't have much of a choice but to fight it. It's really a big ugly mess all around now. What is truly sad is that no one who is in a position of power will learn from it.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[metamatic]

Just because you're not under attack on home ground and don't hear people running and screaming is no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.

On behalf of the fact-based community, I refer you to http://www.xciv.org/~meta/2004/09/30#2004-09-29

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[VikingDBA]

Well I don't like the idea of silencing a free discussion and I do think a healthy political debate over the subject will be a good thing, but I dothink the political maneuvering from both sides within minutes of the report is callous and shameful.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[mr100percent]

You're strawmanning them. They're not mad because the US and UK bombed the training camps there, they probably saw that as martyrdom. They're mad because the Afghanistan bombings had a high civilian toll. I'm sure the US flushing Qurans and Blair supporting Guantanamo Bay didn't help either.

Who said to leave the terrorists alone?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Perryman]

I'll thank you to remember that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.
Wikipedia:
"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable military significance. It contained the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was chosen as a target because it had not suffered damage from previous bombing raids, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading force."
"The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials."

Whether you believe these weapons should have been used or not, that was not our war. It was not my choice, it was theirs. Everything is not a conspiracy.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[mr100percent]

I believe you're correct. I can't think of any Muslim country that didn't back US action in Afghanistan. Nobody was surprised, everyone saw it coming. Muslims had candlelight vigils worldwide after 9/11, and wanted justice. Later on, the US moved to Iraq, that really got people riled up, all over the world. If the US public realized that, we'd perhaps be a little better off.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[metamatic]

Yeah, imagine someone using 9/11 to make a political point... like, holding a political rally by the site of the World Trade Center, on the anniversary of 9/11, and explicitly referring to 9/11 in his speech... what kind of scumbag would do that?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Profound]

Not going to get into the politics of it, but Bali is a tourist island, and the bomb was set off in a nightclub area full of Westerners (Australians, US, UK etc)

Bali is also majority Hindu in otherwise >90% Muslim Indonesia.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[crabpeople]

"no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil."

Yeah im sure glad that my shoes prevent against tigers. 4 years with the same pair and absolutly no tiger attacks! what would i do without my lovely magic shoes. ID BE DEAD. thats what.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Momoru]

I realize that...I guess thats part of my point... Suppose we withdrew from all world politics, then Mexico offends Nigeria with more racist stamps or something...next think you know some Nigerian radical bombs El Paso, TX which has a mostly mexican population... even though tourists were the targets Indonesia itself still paid a large price for that.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Temsi]

Actually, what better time to make the point that we were right and they were wrong, than immediately after we've just been proven right?
Since the morons in charge decided to attack the wrong country, we've been saying:

• that it would create more terrorists than ever before
• that attacking Iraq and ignoring Bin Laden would come back to haunt us
• that doing exactly what Bin Laden wanted (attack a middle eastern nation) would generate even more hatred towards the US and it's allies and would work as a recruitment tool for terrorist organizations
• that boasting "mission accomplished" while people continue to die on both sides would only add fuel to the fire
• that saying "bring'em on" to our enemies is not exactly an effective way of keeping people safe
• that the idea of "figthing them over there so we won't have to fight them here" is a fantasy that can never work
• that we WOULD get hit again (we being the western world)
• that Bush and Blair took their eyes off the ball when they ignored Bin Laden and went into Iraq, and now innocent civilians are paying the ultimate price for their ignorance and arrogance.
• that a "war on terrorism" is impossible to win because of the very nature of the enemy - and is thus "perpetual war" with an enemy that cannot go away, which is exactly what the NeoCons want... it takes us back to the days of the Cold War when the military industrial complex influences policymakers

What better time to say "Look, we've been trying to warn you, but you wouldn't listen, and even called us traitors for not agreeing with your methods." Methods which now seem to be the very reason for this mess.
Of course sympathy for the victims and victim's families is appropriate (prayer may make you feel better, but it does nothing for them), but that doesn't mean we should ignore reality and just follow our inept leaders in lockstep.
Now is the time to stand up and say "the Emperor has no clothes!"

Impeach Bush now!

And yes, I realize I'll probably get some negative mods from the Bush/Blair apologists, but I don't care. This must be said.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Mant]

Why do people not count Hussein as a terrorist?

Becuase he wasn't one.

How many hundreds of thousands of murders do you have to commit before people think you're a bad guy these days?

You know you can be a bad guy without being terroist right? Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he wasn't a terrorist. Just like Hitler wasn't a terrorist, but was evil.

Terrorist has a pretty specific meaning, it doesn't just mean anyone you don't like. Even if you rule through terror, you aren't a terrorist.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[StalinsNotDead]

I was responding to this comment.blockquote>I guess we should just do whatever the most agressive group of people wants us to do.

We should just give up the space program, veil our women, and start to live in the dark ages.Which to me implied a mass-conversion to Islam as the solution. Both pork and alcohol are proscribed by Islam.

I'd like meddlesome foreign policy to disappear too. But that's unlikely as long as there is a reliance on petroleum.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[radtea]

"Oh please, then what triggered 9/11?"

maybe our support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip?

bin Laden was very clear about the motivation for the 9/11 attacks. His primary motivation is to remove American troops from the "Land of the Two Holy Shrines". That is, Saudi Arabia. While he does mention the Israeli occupation of Palestine, that was not his primary motivation, and reducing U.S. support for Israel will not appease him.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ytm]

Why do people not count Hussein as a terrorist?

Because he had power. Terrorists don't have power. This is why they use bombs to scare people. Call Hussein a dictator, murderer or other scum, but he was not a terrorist.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[HalfFlat]

I think that the dropping of atomic bombs on Japanese cities were the 2 greatest war crimes of all time.

It's hard not to regard the Nazi Holocaust as a whole as one of the most horrific acts in recent history. Regarding the US though, one should probably also consider the firebombing of Tokyo. Again, the action was performed with the express intent of maximising civilian casualties, and was horrifically successful.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[CraterGlass]

There were at least 30 clearly identified military targets in Hiroshima at the time the bomb was dropped.

Japan was the aggressor. America would have been justified in using these bombs if they saved the life of ONE American soldier. As it happens, they probably saved the lives of four million Japanese by forcing a surrender.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[VoiceOfDoom]

"....If we could somehow stop people believing in this crap we would stop the problem."

Dude, that is so never going to happen. Religion of one form or another has always been a part of human history. People need something to believe in for reassurance and because it's human nature to want to find reasons for the universe etc.

Most religions have very good principles - forgiveness, charity, loyalty, honour of family etc. It's the *people* that are the problem! Religion is being used as a tool for control, just as economics and politics are used in other places.

There will always be people that hate others, for whatever reason regardless of whether they are religious or not. What can you do?

Love, be loyal, kind, generous and tolerant. Defend your family and friends. Stand up for others rights before your own. Take action when you see wrong being done (and by "take action", I don't just mean posting on Slashdot!). This is all you can do.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[loyukfai]

Nope, it's the same.

No war on terror, less terrorism attacks, and your Fed stop less.

Result: Terror attack once in a while.

War on terror, more terrorism attacks, and your Fed stop more.

Result: Terror attack once in a while.

The difference? More resources poured into security for less productivity elsewhere.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[BgJonson79]

Yes you can.

You kill everyone else on earth but yourself.

Then there will be peace.

Not realistic, by any means, but technically correct.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Politburo]

...I'm losing faith in the mindset of the left even more than ever.

Given the fact that you make such broad generalizations, why should any of us care about your "faith in the mindset of the left"?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[william_w_bush]

ok, as an american i just have to respond "seriously, nobody here has a clue about israel".

we don't know about it, we think that there's just people fussing over something and muslims arguing over israeli land, but have no idea of the real situation.

it's amazing how efficient the information blackout is, and the complete ignorance of people in america about what's actually happening in the middle east. going to europe i talked to people who actually understood that it was a complex and nuanced situation with no easy solution, talking to people here they look at you like you're some kind of communist.

f*cking amazing.

not affiliated with either side, but in an age of such complete media saturation the utter lack of unbiased information about this is shocking.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[bhamm]

Why do people not count Hussein as a terrorist? How many hundreds of thousands of murders do you have to commit before people think you're a bad guy these days? Chemical weapons, torture, murder, mass graves, invading a neighboring country then burning the oil fields as he left...the list goes on and on. He was a terrorist.

He was an asshat, certainly.. but lets have some perspective, sall we? We were quite happy to arm this man and to look the other way when he gassed the iranians. We were also quite happy to arm Osama bin Laden/Taliban when they were fighting the 'evil commie bastards' in the soviet union. If you'd like to go back further, we managed to exterminate lots of indians with smallpox (no mustard qas available) and slaughtering buffalo (burning oil fields) while we occupied and later took their country from them. I love my county, but i do see our errors when they're in plain sight.. and we do have them, just like every other country in history.

And if the polls are showing people thinking Bush is "evil" I'm losing faith in the mindset of the left even more than ever. Just because you're not under attack on home ground and don't hear people running and screaming is no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.

i grow tired of this reaction from people.. if you are unable to separate 'disagreement with our current administration/foreign 'policy' with being unpatriotic or a flaming liberal.. that's your problem, not mine. I don't like terrorism either, but i don't think what we've been doing the last few years in iraq is helping .. AT ALL. What would help tremendously would be 2 things: 1.) stop making them f-ing RICH with our demand for their oil.. and 2.) quit arming these f**kers to begin with.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Mostly Monkey]

This obviously doesn't speak for everyone, but the general consensus from elder Japanese co-workers is that they are GLAD that the USA used atomic bombs to end the war. It ensured that Japan would surrender to us instead of the Soviets.

I thought that was a fascinating point of view.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[stlhawkeye]

True, but lets not include Iraq in "the war on terror". According to the U.S. state department, Iraq was the only county in the middle east which did NOT have any al Qaeda connections.

The state department is wrong.

Oh yeah, and lets not forget that we could have killed al Zarqawi in the past, because we knew right where he was and we had had him cornered. This was not our agenda however, so we let him live.

Which is also why President Clinton declined to take custody of bin Laden when offered him. Hindsight is always 20/20, ain't it?

I would also like to point out that a "War" is often defined as clashing armies, or states, or coilitions. Not generally civilians.

A war is an armed conflict.

You cannot have a "war" on terror. War simply spreads more terror.

Yes, you can. And yes, it does.

If a people are being oppressed (from their prespective, not ours), they will spread terror against their oppressors.

That's a naive viewpoint. It's hard to terrorize your oppressors when your oppressor can gas an entire village of people and slaughter them all. If revolutions were this simple, there'd be no more dictators.

A man is the most dangerous when you take away his hopes and dreams, and from their perspective this is exactly what we have done (I am sure I stole that quote from somewhere).

*double take* BWUAH!? We have taken whose hopes and dreams? Al Qaeda's? Well, yeah, then good, fuck them. Iraq? How in the world have the hopes and dreams of Iraqis been dashed by the United States?

Lets not forget that only one nation has ever used a Nuclear Bomb during warfare, and it was used on civilians, TO SPREAD TERROR!

Everybody loves to drag this one out. I think the power of the bomb could have been demonstrated without as much loss of life, but I wasn't sitting in the Oval Office in 1945 looking at casualty lists and projecting casualty lists of an invasion of Japan's homeland and trying to make a decision. I think that Truman really thought he was doing the right thing for America. The bomb was not dropped to "spread terror," that was an ancillary benefit.

At least the polls are starting to show that Americans have started to figure out that Bush is evil, however it is too bad it took this long! Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

I don't believe the man is evil. Men like Osama bin Laden are evil. Men like Saddam Hussein are evil. It's a little disturbing how comfortably and easily you draw a moral equivilency between a regime that fed political opponents into plastic shredders and the current American president.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[loyukfai]

pointless war in Iraq

*roll eyes*

O I L

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Altus]

you know... I hear this black sheep thing a lot but it just doesnt sit right with me. If osama is so pissed at his Saudi arabia for letting in the infidels and all that, 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.

is it possible that this whole "black sheep" thing is nothing more than a ploy to draw attention away from the fact that our biggest enemy is directly connected to our closest "ally" in the region. Ive never really been convinced that he is so far removed and isolated from the saudi royal family... frankly, its just a little too convenient.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.

...I have this rock that prevents tiger attacks that I thought you might be interested in, only $50. I've had it for years and never once have I been attacked by tigers.

Bush did not prevent 9/11. He failed. Since then he has done pretty much everything possible to piss off foreign governments and people and make as many new terrorists as possible. He has also done nothing to prevent another attack. Many of those teenagers whose parents and brothers were killed by bombs want to kill you. Many of those destitute people whose country was conquered then sold to foreigners and who now have no jobs and live on land owned by their enemies want to kill you. Many of the people who have to listen to their immoral and corrupt conquerers tell them their religion is wrong and that they will burn in hell, all while partaking in some of the most blatant corruption want you dead.

If my home was invaded and bombed by foreigners, who raided the treasury, sold all the land and resources and businesses to foreigners, took out huge loans on my behalf, put a murderer/foreign spy in charge, disrupted electricity and water for years, burned crops then replaced with patented ones that I had to pay a fee every year to use, and it was now horribly dangerous to just go buy groceries... well you get the picture. I'd be in my basement making bombs and planning a way to retake my country or at least repay the bastards.

Half the world thinks Bush is evil and your arrogance to think that he is not just because he is murdering, lying, and destroying on behalf of your country is sickening.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[tres]

What's disconcerting is the attempt by you and others to label anyone you don't agree with a "terrorist."

Hussein was a despot, a criminal, a tyrant and a murderer, but he was not a terrorist.

Using the "terrorist" label so blithely--whether it be intentional distortion or just ignorance--is a problem.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[zasos]

excelent point!

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[peacefinder]

Traditionally, there has been a distinction drawn between "Terrorists" and "Brutal Dictators." Terrorists typically do not wield any State power, whereas brutal dictators gather it all to themselves.

Call Hussein a terrorist if you like. But if you want to do so honestly, you're going to have to call a bunch of other leaders terrorists, too. If a head of state could be lablelled a terrorist just for using his nation's powers against internal or external enemies, or by trying to intimidate others into making concessions by violent means, then the list of famous terrorists gets really long.

Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot, of course, but also Winston Churchill. (Churchill authorized the "nighttime terror bombing" of Germany.) A little reading will reveal that pretty much every head of state in a difficult war also makes the list. I'd say that every US president from Andrew Jackson through the end of the "Indian wars" qualifies, as does every US president from 1942 through the end of the Cold War.

Me, I think that your usage of the word terrorist is overbroad and makes the word useless. Calling Hussein a brutal dictator is damning enough, no?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[DrSoCold]

You are full of shit, a social unrealist.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ncc74656]

They're not being Islamic, and they're not Holy. Did you notice that every major Islamic organization so far has condemned and distanced themselves from those groups?

What organizations would those be? Their silence has been deafening.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[RealWorldNerd]

Sigh. The fact that can't morally discriminate between intentional, targeted murder and collatoral damage shows how seriously deluded you are. You have to go back 20 years??? They RECENTLY killed 3000 of our brothers, sisters, uncles, fathers... They RECENTLY cut the heads off innocent civilians. And they did it with cold, calculated malice. They are evil, and must be destroyed. We are all nerds, but it's time to grow up and recognize the realities of the world we live in.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ncc74656]

After the US and Britain's ruthless and unprovoked attack on Mussolini's Italy, anyway. There was no proof that Italy was in any way involved with either the invasion of Poland or the attack at Pearl Harbor.

This is not analogous. There was not, and has never been, any link between Al Qaeda, the perpitrators of 9/11, and Saddam Hussien's Baathist regime.

Wrong. Thanks for playing, though.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Maxo-Texas]

You say:

You cannot bring about peace with war.

Correctly applied force is the only way to bring peace. Words only work when backed up with clear evidence you will use force. In some cases, you are only left with the option of completely eradicating the enemy. In most, you only need to remove 10-15% of the population before the rest alter their beliefs to be compatible with you.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[blechx]

It really has nothing to do with how many you kill, it has to do with who you kill. Therefore, the WTC attack is considered a great evil, while Saddams gasings wasn't at the time (however, in retrospect it is convenient, since the USA is now no longer allies with him.)

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ncc74656]

True, but lets not include Iraq in "the war on terror". According to the U.S. state department, Iraq was the only county in the middle east which did NOT have any al Qaeda connections.

Wrong. Who mods shit like this insightful?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Snaller]

God your an idiot. Nobody said Saddam was nice, but that doesn't give anybody else the right to be a criminal.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[St. Arbirix]

Perhaps they couldn't do this in the U.S.

The war on terrorism likely prevented this happening there. I agree that it's sad anyone else has gotten this involved in what was essentially a U.S. fight.

Though if I recall correctly, the U.S. wasn't the only country to be populated completely by godless people.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[FLEB]

You're right, there never was (IIRC) an out-and-outright claim, but there was quite a lot of wordplay, insinuation, and almost-but-not-quite implication, and it's not unreasonable to say that this was intentional.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[MagikSlinger]

I agree totally. However, I would like to remind people that the war on terror possibly prevented many more such incidents.

I'm reminded of Lisa Simpson:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: *Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money* Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Lisa: *Lisa shakes head in refusal at first, then takes the exchange*

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[DarthVain]

Gulf War ended? News to me... You have to admit that really didn't turn out well...

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Snaller]

That's because you can't grieve for strangers - you have to prevent it happening to you.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Rhys]

Just because you're not under attack on home ground and don't hear people running and screaming is no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.

Tell that to the people in Spain, Iraq, ...

Insightful? No. Propaganda? Yes.

Bush could be (and finally is moving in that direction, maybe) moving in the direction of solving the problem by making us less dependant on foreign oil. Really, if they want to sit there on that end of the world and blow themselves up I couldn't care less, and neither would anyone else in this country if we didn't need their damn oil.

The republicans are not exactly known for non-oil research.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[cybpunks3]

Musharaff has been almost assassinated a few times for his "minimum compliance". I think he's come around.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[brkello]

Not that I can speak for the left, but being part of that group, I don't think Bush is evil, I think he is misguided and incompetant. Listen, he lied to us (even though he can say bad intel., he chose to ignore the majority of intel. out there that said there were no weapons) and made others lie for him to attack a country. He is responsible for the death of thousands of innocent people. He might not want the death of those innocents, but still, he is responsible for them.

As far as Saddam being a terrorist, you can kind of make a case. But really, he was just a brutal ruler. He took down people in his own country so that he could have control. He attacked Kuwait, sure, and did bad things...but is that really a terrorist? I think the right uses that word way too much that it has lost all meaning. When we talk of a war on terrorism, we mean stopping terrorists who are going to do damage to our country. Iraq was not a terrorist threat. Period. Saudi Arabi is much more of a threat than Iraq, but Bush doesn't have the balls or the brains to stand up to our oil ally. So label Saddam whatever you want, it doesn't justify the war.

No one is arguing that we have to take a bigger role in the world to prevent attacks. That is what the left has been saying for years and it took 9/11 for the right to ditch their isolationist policies. But the actions this administration are taking is just making things worse. The Iraq war was a personal vendetta that Bush wanted at the very start...I mean, they tried to take out his dad. You think he just put that aside? So now Iraq is full of real terrorists thanks to us. Hell, we put Saddam in power in the first place. I don't blame Iraqis for hating us, we continue to make thier lives hell based on "good intentions".

Speaking of faith, I am losing faith on the ability of the right to be able to govern the country without infecting it with their beliefs. These are beliefs, other people don't believe what you believe. Have the guts to stand up for what this country really stand for...the ability for all of us to be free to believe what we want. Do not cram your morals down our throat. We were founded on religious freedom, not Christianity.

Really, I hate this whole right vs left thing. But if you are going to go there, I am willing to go down that road too.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Mr. Ghost]

Religion is not the reason for this attack (if it was al-Qaida which it now appears to be). The violence in that region and the cultural nature of dealing with things in a violent manner predate the establishment of Islam.

If every person in the middle east was Buddist, Hindi, Christian, Pagan, Aethist or Agnostic the culture of violence would still exist.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[LKM]

Just because you're not under attack on home ground and don't hear people running and screaming is no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.

Your logic is very wrong. Nothing like 9/11 happened in the 2000 years before it, and it's no wonder nothing like it happened in the 4 years after it.

Bush could have spent those years hunting butterflies on his farm and it would have had the same effect. In fact, America and the rest of the western world would probably have been a lot saver if he had done that.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[FLEB]

Why do people not count Hussein as a terrorist? How many hundreds of thousands of murders do you have to commit before people think you're a bad guy these days?

Murderous Dictator != Terrorist
Murderer != Terrorist

Bad? Yes. Invadable? Debatable. Terrorist? Probably not.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[WhiplashII]

...in a nation that never once supported bin laden...

This comment might make sense for the "war on bin laden," but for the war on terror it doesn't - Iraq as a government was paying people's families if they martyred themselves by becoming mass murderers (terrorists). Iraq was beligerent about it, so they got stuffed. Iran is probably second, and I imagine they are very worried that the Iraqi conflict may end in a few years (probably why there are so many Iranians trying to extend that conflict as long as possible).

Lebanon is a strange one - the government pays terrorists to strike, and then says sorry and pays damages. Probably a case of multiple personality disorder (commonly seen in governments around the world!).

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Myuu]

I really hate the internet because it (and FNC) gives retards like you the right to think you know everything.

"don't hear people running and screaming is no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil."

Prove it, prove that Bush has single handedly done anything that his predecessors have not. You cannot. There was 8 years between the last attacks on American soil, so the way I see it, all you have on your side is probability.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[WhiplashII]

I think the real point of all this is that being involved with Iraq caused this - and we knew it going into Iraq. We just also knew that not going into Iraq would also cause it - and we hope that by creating a free Iraq (if it can be done) we can prevent terrorism in 50 years.

There is no hope to end terrorism for today, the terrorists are already committed.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[gg3po]

I seem to remember that the UK was about to try to pass some kind of Draconian natinal ID system that was largely expected to be defeated. How much you wanna bet it goes sailing through, now. If this is the case, the timing of these "attacks" seems awfully convenient. Maybe our UK friends can confirm/deny?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[cyberbob2010]

Sigh. The fact that can't morally discriminate between intentional, targeted murder and collatoral damage shows how seriously deluded you are. You have to go back 20 years??? They RECENTLY killed 3000 of our brothers, sisters, uncles, fathers... They RECENTLY cut the heads off innocent civilians. And they did it with cold, calculated malice. They are evil, and must be destroyed. We are all nerds, but it's time to grow up and recognize the realities of the world we live in.

i don't have to go back twenty years. and you know what? you don't want to look at we do to the people in the middle east? then look at what they did to rachel corrie. Read her letters home - then bitch at me about my ignorance. http://www.rachelcorrie.org/ better yet - here is one of them - "You just can't imagine it unless you see it - and even then you are always well aware that your experience of it is not at all the reality: what with the difficulties the Israeli army would face if they shot an unarmed US citizen, and with the fact that I have money to buy water when the army destroys wells, and the fact, of course, that I have the option of leaving. Nobody in my family has been shot, driving in their car, by a rocket launcher from a tower at the end of a major street in my hometown. I have a home. I am allowed to go see the ocean. When I leave for school or work I can be relatively certain that there will not be a heavily armed soldier waiting halfway between Mud Bay and downtown Olympia at a checkpoint with the power to decide whether I can go about my business, and whether I can get home again when I'm done. As an afterthought to all this rambling, I am in Rafah: a city of about 140,000 people, approximately 60% of whom are refugees - many of whom are twice or three times refugees. Today, as I walked on top of the rubble where homes once stood, Egyptian soldiers called to me from the other side of the border, "Go! Go!" because a tank was coming. And then waving and "What's your name?". Something disturbing about this friendly curiosity. It reminded me of how much, to some degree, we are all kids curious about other kids. Egyptian kids shouting at strange women wandering into the path of tanks. Palestinian kids shot from the tanks when they peak out from behind walls to see what's going on. International kids standing in front of tanks with banners. Israeli kids in the tanks anonymously - occasionally shouting and also occasionally waving - many forced to be here, many just agressive - shooting into the houses as we wander away." btw - she was an american ran over by an israeli bulldozer in broad daylight when she refused to move away from a FAMILIES house

Ok so then to follow your logic "the jews are the reason." That's the same thing that Hitler was saying and the reason he murdered 6 million of them. You sir are a Nazi! Tell me why women in muslim countries are treated like dogs. Is that also the fault of the Jews? Blame violence on the violent! You jew hating nazi scum.

not saying that we should leave them to rot. What I am saying is that instead of complaining about how they have no morals (the terrorist) - perhaps we should look at what sort of image we are painting for ourselves over there AND THEN pick our course of action.

do you hate women?
wtf? no i don't hate women anymore than i "hate" Jews. I left them out of that statement because they are not caught in the crossfire or wrongly targeted as hostiles nearly as often as males are.

bin Laden was very clear about the motivation for the 9/11 attacks. His primary motivation is to remove American troops from the "Land of the Two Holy Shrines". That is, Saudi Arabia. While he does mention the Israeli occupation of Palestine, that was not his primary motivation, and reducing U.S. support for Israel will not appease him.

that may be but when i spoke of people being killed 20 or 10 or hell 2 3 1 5 4 years ago - i was speaking of iraq and iran as well

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ductormalef]

The correct statement would be "The war on terrorism DID NOT prevent this."

In any war there are victories and losses. There are attacks launched by both sides. To say that this attack was triggered by the war on terrorism is really one of those "no shit, sherlock" moments. The war is not over and both sides will continue to attack. Do you think the terrorist attacks will stop if we stop fighting back. They will only stop when their agenda is met or they are beat to a pulp so much that they can't function anymore. Remember, the WTC and Pentagon were attacked before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. There are some generally accepted ideas about what Bin Laden and Al Qaeda want, but I don't see many people suggesting that we should acquiesce.

An interesting question to ask is: How many terrorist attacks have been stopped or discouraged by the war on terrorism? You have to remember that this is not just a war fought by soldiers on a battlefield. There is a massive effort to locate and destroy the terrorists ability to function (money, communications, etc.) That being said, the retaliatory invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq have certainly made terrorists less likely to attack. If you get kicked in the balls every time you pinch the guy sitting next to you, you tend to stop pinching so often.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[mugnyte]

Islamists are Muslims, which is just a religion. There's nothing in your statement to qualify it to a more direct, smaller culture of death, such as suicide bombers. If you replace your words with Jews it sounds awfully like the anti-semetic propaganda of pre-WWII.

You cannot blame the ideology of religious-based terrorism on any one country right now. Clerics (or religious leaders) in every country, including the US are embracing fundamentalism. I can't speak to the reasons for this, but suffice it to say, it is everywhere and it is divisive.

The intolerance of any religious group against any other group must be tamed by the religions themselves. The pressure for tradition, land and resources is causing conflict. Perhaps the swift modernization of the information age is causing groups everywhere to "rush to arms" to save their worldview which is probably now outdated. The world's new (and ever-changing) situations are delivering a perceived unfairness to these groups (religious, labor, political, social) and they are reacting.

Warfare follows the historic steps exactly; we have truly learned nothing. These incidents will occur until entire countries must choose a position, and then each position will fight each other. I can only hope I am within the borders of a abstaining country when it happens.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[DebianDog]

B.S.!!! If you are not a Muslim, that hates Israel, you are and will remain nothing more then a "Zionist Infidel" in their eyes. If the U.K. started bombing the shit out of the Israelis today, the Brits would be off the hook. For a while...

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Most importantly, I must point out talking to the terrorists would not have prevented this either.

A Yemeni judge and theologist has been doing just that. He talks to them about what Islamic doctrine actually says. He's turned hundreds away from the dark side, including one who helped the US track down the planner of the U.S.S. Cole bombing.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[cyberbob2010]

Iraq was beligerent about it, so they got stuffed. Iran is probably second, and I imagine they are very worried that the Iraqi conflict may end in a few years (probably why there are so many Iranians trying to extend that conflict as long as possible). actually, the saudi gov. gave more money to terrorists than all of the other middle eastern countries combined. 9 of the 9/11 terrorist were also saudi. so why didn't we attack the saudi's? because the saudi's also sell more oil to us than any other middle eastern country and Iraq has, absolutely, more oil in its land than any other nation in the world while at the same time they sold less to us than any other oil exporting middle eastern nation. so lets think about this saudi's = terrorist but also = oil iraq = less terrorist and no ties to the people who bombed us on 9/11 but also = the most oil reserves with the least amount of US access. hmmmm....bush....oil......hmmmm

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Mister Yoan]

Yes, it is a known fact that Usama bin Laden was extremely critical of Iraq under Hussein:

1. Iraq was a largely secular state, with a lot of modernization('Westernization') going on.
2. The Iran/Iraq war.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Nopal]

You cannot bring about peace with war.

Sure, genius. I guess that's why the US is still fighting the Japanese and the Germans since the 1940's, right? As well all know, those countries are still killing each other.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ZeroExistenZ]

I was thinking the same thing.

this could result in two things.. OR the EU will feel more involved with this madness and the US will feel they're justified. And everyone instantly turns their head and supports the war in Iraq after a short episode of "informating the people". (note the lack of link) and we'll be stuck with two psychotic worldleaders wanting 'revenge' and getting some advantage right or left. (eg. oil, influence, ...)

Or people will see how crazy Blair was to play Bushs' cockpuppet, get reminded why WTC != Iraq.

Violence breeds violence. The issues haven't been resolved, the US just has tried to crush them by doing so creating more 'terrorists' (even if only be redefining the word). But we know how that ended. (or wont for another decade or so)

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Mister Yoan]

I may also add with the beautiful 'democracy' blooming in Iraq, it could be simple for a REAL Islamic fundamentalist to seize Iraq; something which would please bin Laden. Why are people who are loyal to bin Laden fighting in Iraq, if they hate Iraq? It's an opportunity. More publicity, more members, more support.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[zardo]

You make it sound as if life in Gaza was all daisies before we intervened. It was a nasty conflict, and we intervened in an effort for peace, not just to support the Israelis. If we wouldn't have intervened, I think the Israeli's would have eventually obliterated most of their Arab neighbors, they certainly had a superior military to begin with, sometimes you just need total military dominance to end a conflict, that has been American strategy for decades. Don't forget why the Jews were in Israel at the time, they were all being senselessly slaughtered in eastern europe by the nazi's during WW2. Besides that, hardly anybody lives in Gaza or the Golan Heights. There was a MASSIVE exodus, and for palestinians to say "we dont want you living on our wastelands" is just stupid, and reflects the same mentality the Nazi's had. That's the difference between the two sides in this conflict, one side has the ability to totally obliterate the other, but all they want is peace. The other side wishes they had the ability to obliterate the other, and it's tearing them apart.

So don't pretend like you know what it's like to have your family killed by Americans. Why don't you try and imagine your mom and sister being blown up on a crowded bus on the way to school.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[jafac]

I would also like to point out that a "War" is often defined as clashing armies, or states, or coilitions. Not generally civilians.

Don't be ignorant.

Throughout history, war has ALWAYS targeted civillians. Economic competition always preceeds open conflict, and as such, you and I, daily going to our jobs and working, are combatants in the economic phase of a larger war. Even more so, in a Democracy, when civilians command the military to action - we make ourselves justified targets.

We may prefer to believe the lie that we're not involved, that we don't make ourselves legitimate targets, that war can be "clean" or "moral" or "just" - but the horrible fact is, human beings see the truths that they want to see. Define "War" however you want. Reality defines it otherwise.

I agree, that it's more "civilized" to attempt to fight a war in such a way that non-combatants are excluded from physical violence. I'd like to see a day dawn where all wars are fought in this manner - but a better goal would be no more wars period.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[linzeal]

When the attacks occured on the towers I was working in Sunnyvale and that night when I ordered pizza it was delivered by a arab who I grabbed in the doorway and hugged, we talked for a bit about what Israel was doing that week and I gave him a 20 dollar tip. After that the pizza was delivered with extra food until a new owner took over. The new owner was chinese and called me up saying that even though the old owner had insisted that they treat me different that there would be nothing of the sort. So I started ordering chinese food from other chinese folk.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ebvwfbw]

You cannot bring about peace with war.

You seem to be a bit confused. What you should have said is "You cannot bring about peace with terrorism." Peace by definition comes about after war. The US has a great track record of that as well. The US doesn't take over the countries after conquoring them. The US turns them back over to better leaders. France (twice), Germany (twice), Japan, Italy, Granada, and recently Afghanistan and Iraq to mention a few. Some have turned out bad - Cuba for example. Terrorism brings more death and destruction. Give in and they will terrorize you into submission. Fight for your freedom Europe.

I think now is a good time to remind people that the war on terrorism could not have prevented this.

Your opinion. Maybe, maybe not. The war on terrorism in the US clearly has worked. Who would have bet any amount (even 1 cent) the day after 9/11/01 that there would not be an another attack in the US for even a year? Here we are nearly 4 years later and the measures put in place (the heavily criticized patriot act) prevented it from happening. They have arrested plenty of people and stopped many attacks. We still have (loud - Howard Dean's scream) critics of the government and apparently not one single case of abuse of power. If you think you know of one, lets here it. Nothing from bob's blog or other BS sites (lets see an AP or UPI article). I want a real verifiable case, not imagined ones. Be sure of what you are saying, most cases of "abuse" turn out to not be abuses, they are standard procedures that have happened for decades and have nothing to do with the patriot act. Good luck since the best legal minds couldn't come up with a single case for Congress recently.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[zardo]

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.

Look at desktop commander here, making up military strategy. America has had the ability to fight wars on many different fronts for quite some time. We helped defeat Germany while single handedly defeating Japan, a 10x greater effort (or more) than what we have here. You just can't say how things would be different if we had never gone into Iraq. It's quite possible that Saddam could be undermining our efforts in Afghanistan, he probably would have given us plenty of reason to go in there, and Afghanistan would be even uglier than Iraq right now but they would be all juiced up for an invasion in Iraq.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[linzeal]

RSS LINK for BBC

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Austerity Empowers]

Or maybe just religious maniacs who'd find any excuse at all to make headlines.

War on terror, no war on terror; Israeli support, no israeli support, it doesn't matter. It's not really about religion. Religion is just an amplifier for feelings that already exist. It's still about have's and have nots. We have everything BUT oil, they have only oil. But oil is fundamental to modern society. Hence we are perpetually annoyed at getting our arms twisted over oil prices, they are always feeling like they're being robbed. Israel is a distraction, useful for stirring up the looneys just like saying "abortion" is here.

All vectors indicate we should work very hard to not need oil ASAP. I suspect that will precipitate a short term rise in terrorism, followed by a period of prolonged silence.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[sy161e]

Where do you think Hussein got the chemical weapons, and other various WMDs? That's right, us, when we were funding Iraq's campaign against Iran.

And what about Bush I, idly sitting in office while Hussein was making massive graves? A few people change our entire agenda in this country, and other mindless goons clamor along, crying foul!

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[linzeal]

Well why aren't we helping in Africa than? There are half a dozen brutish regimes that we could take down in a weekend.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[feepness]

who never once threatened or attacked any US citizen outside of their own country

Assassination plot against former President George Bush.

Not that I supported the War in Iraq, but not having your facts straight really doesn't help your argument.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[awhelan]

Islamists are Muslims, which is just a religion. There's nothing in your statement to qualify it to a more direct, smaller culture of death, such as suicide bombers. If you replace your words with Jews it sounds awfully like the anti-semetic propaganda of pre-WWII.

Wow, that entire statement is ignorant. Next time Google a word you don't understand before accusing someone of being intolerant.
Muslims are followers of Islam.
They are people, not "a religion" as you say. Islam is the religion.
Islamists are *violent* radical Islamic fundamentalists. They ARE a more direct, smaller culture of terrorists. I know several Muslims, but have never met an Islamist.

As for replacing his words with "Jews"... that's not bad flamebait, but how about you try replacing it with something close to it's definition, like... terrorist? Would that help you understand the post better?

The only posts I dislike more than the blatently incorrect statements and conspiracy theories are the ones that correct and critisize people who are right. Stop destroying the community with this trash!

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[IAmMaxHarris]

The "war on terror" did not vanquish our enemy because we didn't fight it hard enough.

A nuclear detonation in Mecca, coupled with a full WWII-style invasion of the entire middle east would have worked. The momentum to do this was present after 9/11, but Bush squandered it.

You can't have a "limited" war, where you bomb and kill selectively, and parachute food to your enemy in the same day!

If we had fought WWII the same way, the Nazis might still be in power today.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[colinrichardday]

And how has prayer helped in the past? And how is prayer any more of an action than thought?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[mugnyte]

Thanks for the correction. I'm not above standing up to be corrected, but your style leaves something to be desired.

As to the rest of your tirade, it doesn't seem to answer my thought.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[WhiplashII]

The reason we didn't attack the Saudis was the same reason we will not attack Lebanon - the government in general is anti-terrorism, they just have some crazies in there. Attacking them moves power to the crazies, not away.

Um, can I also just point out that to a "bush...oil" person that the Saudi's would be competitors to a US company?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[jadavis]

WWII was solved by violence, not "round table discussions". Any discussions were held only after the unconditional surrender of the enemy, at which point the enemies had no negotiating power. The discussions were more between the allies, who basically divided up the land afterward.

It's unfortunate, but sometimes the only way to solve a problem is by violence.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[letxa2000]

So you are willing to appease the aggressors (by abandoning our ally Israel) in an effort to achieve peace? You need look no further than WWII to see how well appeasement (doesn't) work.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Daxx_61]

Speaking as a Brit, and speaking as a Brit who doesn't trust our government, I am going to risk all the Karma I have by suggesting something very cynical
*dons tinfoil hat*

Our government did it.

They have multiple reasons for creating a "terrorist attack". The Identity Cards bill. Anti-terrorism bills. Removing the right to trial by jury. Many, many others. Even if it wasn't them, they're still going to take advantage.

It's curious this happens after the London Olympics bid was successful, not before. To coincide with the G8 summit could have been done two days ago, before the bid - something far more irritating. Also, the 4 blasts hit only what were nuisance targets, no damage to anything important. And one was right outside the BMA.

Maybe I'm just paranoid.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[flyingsquid]

you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.

Al Qaeda doesn't need to come over here to kill Americans when we're shipping them to Zarqawi in unarmored humvees.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[cyberbob2010]

really, even though they sell to many companies associated with bush? view them more as a supplier than as a competitor also, the government now puts on an image of anti-terrorism. before 9/11 they gave more money to their religious organizations than they did to education. i'll give you three guesses where the CIA says most of that money went.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[gurumeditationerror]

Sigh. The fact that can't morally discriminate between intentional, targeted murder and collatoral damage shows how seriously deluded you are. You have to go back 20 years??? They RECENTLY killed 3000 of our brothers, sisters, uncles, fathers... They RECENTLY cut the heads off innocent civilians. And they did it with cold, calculated malice. They are evil, and must be destroyed. We are all nerds, but it's time to grow up and recognize the realities of the world we live in.

Yup, time to take a hard look at Bush 'n' co.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[interiot]

Ahh, Wikipedia clarifies somewhat. There are MULTIPLE definitions of "terrorism", one of them includes any violence against civilians. In fact, State terrorism has its own Wikipedia page...

The use or threat of violence by the state ... as a means of political intimidation and control.

I think it's undisputable that Saddam qualifies as a terrorist under that definition (eg. the draining of mesopotamia, mustard gas tests against the kurds, etc. etc. etc...).

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[supmylO]

"I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said! Are we a nation of 6-year-olds?" - David Cross, "It's Not Funny"

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Guppy06]

"I dothink the political maneuvering from both sides within minutes of the report is callous and shameful."

And you're using it to tell us we should all pray more.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Zeinfeld]

Islamists are Muslims, which is just a religion.

No: Islamists are Muslim supremacists. Condeming Islamist terror groups is no different than condemning racism.

If you replace your words with Jews it sounds awfully like the anti-semetic propaganda of pre-WWII

If you replace the word NAZI with Jew in pretty much any speech of Winston Churchill you have the same result, so what? The more appropriate analogy would be to replace Islamist with Zionist. You can oppose Zionism without being anti-semitic.

There is a big difference between being a member of a religious group and beleiving that that religious group should dominate others.

I do not dispute the fact that there is little to distinguish between the Islamic fascists like Bin Laden and white Christian Fascists like Rudolf and Timothy McVeigh. But that does not affect the fact that the term 'Islamist' has a very specific meaning in English and it is not the meaning that you attempted to attach to it.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[portforward]

I think now is a good time to remind people that the war on terrorism could not have prevented this.

I think now is a good time to remind people that humans in general have preconceived opinions about how the world functions. Therefore many people of different belief systems will take the same event and interpret the event in completely different ways. In fact many pundits will take this event and see "See! See this news article! This event competely verifies my world view. The world should now follow my advice because I accurately predicted this event."

I don't have any good advice, I just wanted to point that out.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[asadsalm]

Have you seen "The Interpreter"?

Mushraff ALWAYS ALMOST BARELY espaces.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[zardo]

These are the same people that were beating the police cars with metal bars the other day on TV, protesting the G8 summit. Nevermind them.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Zeinfeld]

Look at desktop commander here, making up military strategy. America has had the ability to fight wars on many different fronts for quite some time. We helped defeat Germany while single handedly defeating Japan, a 10x greater effort (or more) than what we have here.

Actually there is a very large number of senior US military officers who have said the exact same thing. Several of the serving officers were forced to retire for saying that it was a mistake to leave Afghanistan with the job unfinished.

WWII was a very different situation for several reasons. In the first place Roosevelt ordered both a draft and a general mobilization putting the entire economy on a war footing. From the invasion of Pearl Harbor to V-J day the entire focus of the economy was supporting the military actions.

Needless to say that has not happened, nor is it politically possible to do so at this point. The country simply does not have enough confidence in Bush's management of the invasion of Iraq to allow their kids to be drafted.

You just can't say how things would be different if we had never gone into Iraq. It's quite possible that Saddam could be undermining our efforts in Afghanistan, he probably would have given us plenty of reason to go in there, and Afghanistan would be even uglier than Iraq right now but they would be all juiced up for an invasion in Iraq.

Saddam was a secular leader, precisely the type of leader that the Islamists object to. The whole point of Al Qaeda was to replace 'apostates' like Saddam. There is no more proof of the claims of Saddam's involvement in 9/11 than there is of Saddam's WMD. The Sudan government attempted to set up an alliance but Saddam's people did not bother to show up to even talk to them.

It is obvious that the US would have a lot more military options today if the US army was not stuck in the quagmire of Iraq. Equally the British army would have a lot more options if it did not have 9,000 troops engaged in Iraq. It is not possible to say exactly what Saddam might have been up to in Afghanistan if there had been no invasion just as it is not possible to say with precision what the North Koreans, the Russians or the French might be up to. But the overwhelming balance of probabilities is that the answer would be either 'nothing at all' or 'helping bring down the Taleban'.

Saddam's people had been fighting Al Zarqawi before the US invasion, that is why Al Zarqawi was hiding in the north where he was protected by US air power.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[zardo]

Quit yer whining. Current report is that 37 people are dead. That is nothing in comparison to the 9/11 attacks. Bush, the same guy you're angry and frustrated at, has done an admirable job preventing any such attacks on OUR country, perhaps you should be pointing your boogered up finger at your own leaders, for failing to protect your country. You guys in the UK seriously have a lot more to worry about than you even realize. Seal your borders, start arresting these radical murderers like we're doing here. You can't expect America to protect the entire world, fool.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[enosys]

I don't think that not going into Iraq would also lead to terrorist attacks. Saddam's regime was not that connected to terrorists.

Sure, the war may have been justified by how people were suffering due to Saddam and the sanctions. However, it was certainly not justified as a part of the war on terror.

It is important to remember that the invasion of Iraq motivated more people to join terrorist organizations. It's not like there is a certain number of terrorists out there and we just need to defeat them. As Israel has found out the supply is virtually inexhaustible.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[PeelBoy]

Uhh yeah. That's why I pay more that DOUBLE the price for a gallon of gas now than I did just a few years ago. It's all that extra oil we have now from invading iraq. It sure as hell paid off. Talk of the price going up by more than a dollar by the end of the year is further proof of our success in iraq. All this extra oil is REALLY paying off. Soon I'll be paying $4/gallon. Hooray for oil!! Now we just need to invade another country for their oil so I can start paying $8/gallon. Fuck yeah!!! Whose with me?

Seriously, could you be more retarded?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[zardo]

I'll vote for the guy who promises a much more agressive war on terror. They all need to be killed. That's the only way problems like this have ever been solved, throughout history, is by extermination.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[1ucius]

Not to mention paying for suicide bombings (around $20K, IIRC). Preaty clear 'support of terrorism' if you ask me.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[WhiplashII]

Yeah, they really are competitors - even if they are interelated, relatively friendly competitors.

For example, when OPEC raises prices, resellers pass that cost on to the consumer, right? But that leads to lower volumes, which means lower profits. When one persons profit maximization minimizes your profit, you are more or less competitors. (To put it another way: have you ever worked with or as an outsourcing company? Did you feel that your inerests were aligned with your "partner," or that they were a competitor?)

I agree that there were major problems in the middle east before 9/11 (and also today!), and my only comment is that there are current major problems in Africa, former Soviet countries, etc. We cannot solve all the worlds problems in a single day. (Though we are currently working towards solving the worlds problems, even the greedy capitalist pigs like me!)

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[zardo]

I'll argue that there are less terrorists than before, and that their attacks are much less murdersome than before. Remember that the United States suffered about 100 times more deaths in our most recent terrorist attack. Care to defend your statements further? Why don't you suggest a different plan? Someone else suggested we build bigger and bigger buildings for them to try and blow up, are you sticking by that? Should we start roundtable discussions with the terrorists? Lets legalize marijuana and smoke the terrorists out of our minds!

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Floody]

If every person in the middle east was Buddist, Hindi, Christian, Pagan, Aethist or Agnostic the culture of violence would still exist. [emphasis added]

I suspect that the culture of violence could not exist in the region if Hindi was the predominate religion. The two are mutually incompatible.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Shakrai]

After the US and Britain's ruthless and unprovoked attack on Mussolini's Italy, anyway. There was no proof that Italy was in any way involved with either the invasion of Poland or the attack at Pearl Harbor.

The nerve of the United States to deploy troops to protect Saudi Arabia from outside aggression after being invited by the Saudi Government. He had every right to be upset and murder three thousand civilians.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ckaminski]

Smokescreen. What's his motivation? Bomb the US to cause the US to leave an area he cares deeply about? US bombs the fuck out of the area, war comes to the country next to Mecca...

No, methinks it was a deliberate attempt to cause us to further destablize the region through war, although to what end? Removing Saddam seems appropriate enough, but why? How could Saddam be sure 9/11 would incite a war in Iraq? Seems almost a foregone conclusion, actually... But is the battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan really something he'd want fought?

I don't know. Madmen are truly stupid sometimes... maybe Osama really is an idiot.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[WhiplashII]

And what about the money Iraq was paying to the families of suicide bombers (apparently at least a factor in the decision to do it)?

They supported terror. They publicly defied the US. That made them the perfect target to cause a perception change in the middle east. Face it, before we attacked most of the middle east cheered when Americans were killed. Now the average middle easterner is worried about it. (Of course the terrorists haven't changed - they are a lost cause...)

I really think that in the long run, we have made the right decision. (And yes, in order to convince the US population to do it, truth was streched, deals were made, etc. And unfortunately, that is how our country works... they can't exactly go on the air and say "Well, when we killed 3 guys and put a wiretap on Saddaam's phone he kept calling bin Laden!" I think the documentaries on all this in 20-40 years after the secrets are no longer secrets should be very interesting...)

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ifwm]

Probably the idea that people who commit acts such as this don't get motivation from things like the "war on terrorism" but are just psychos.

And the idea of attempting to rationalize atrocities such as these by claiming they were caused by anything other than that mental imbalance is idiotic and naive.

Honestly people like you claiming that things like this are caused by the war on terror remind me of rapists claiming their victims were "asking for it". You do realize that's what you did right? Blame the victims of a horrible atrocity for the actions of a few wackos.

You're right though, it wasn't a troll, it was just dumb.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[JofCoRe]

the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil

Yeah, it's all because of dubya's "war on terror" that we've been safe for 4 years.

More likely, it's because of his "war on terror" (and specifically Iraq) that we will be the target of more terroist actions in the future. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that we haven't pissed off a whole new generation of terrorists by invading Iraq. We just gave them more fuel for their cause with that, by invading a country that had nothing to do w/the attack on the WTC...

I don't understand how anyone can see dubya as anything else, personally. He is arrogant, abusive of his power, and condescending. He thinks that "I'm the president, that means I don't have to give reasons" (not a direct quote, but he said something similar). Wrong! As the president, you are accountable to the people, not an all powerful ruler like he seems to think.

I'm glad that more people are "waking up" and questioning, rather than blindly following. Dubya needs to answer to the american people for his betrayal of their trust.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[sean.peters]

Why do people not count Hussein as a terrorist? How many hundreds of thousands of murders do you have to commit before people think you're a bad guy these days? Chemical weapons, torture, murder, mass graves, invading a neighboring country then burning the oil fields as he left...the list goes on and on.

He did all that stuff 20 years ago - you remember, when Don Rumsfeld was shaking his hand? If Gulf War II was really about mass murder, you'd think we would have done it sooner than 20 years after the fact. But of course, the reason for GWII wasn't anything Saddam did or didn't do - it was all about George Bush's political advancement.

Sean

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[JofCoRe]

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.

Bingo! The U.S. has been meddling in the middle east for years. Waaay before 9-11 happened..

The U.S. has this "holier than thou" attitude that "our way is right" and we want to make everyone else do things the way that we do. Well, guess what? Not everyone or every country wants to be like the U.S.!! It's not our place to tell another country how to run themselves, every nation must stand or fall on its own.

I really think we need to adopt the Prime Directive from Star Trek ... Roddenberry was on to something w/that one :)

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ifwm]

'and who never once threatened or attacked any US citizen outside of their own country"

That's funny, my BROTHER IN LAW was KILLED (born in Florida, US citizen all the way) while working for a contracting company in... Kuwait. Last time I checked, that wasn't in Iraq.

So you're a liar (I went to the funeral, he was most certainly dead) and since liars disgust me, you can shut up now.

Really, do you think lying to convince people makes you seem more connected to the process? Like you have some rare insight that others don't?

SORRY BUT YOU'RE A LIAR. STOP LYING.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[zardo]

Several of the serving officers were forced to retire for saying that it was a mistake to leave Afghanistan with the job unfinished.

Perhaps they were forced to resign for spreading misinformation like that we were leaving Afghanistan. We're still in Afghanistan.

WWII was a very different situation for several reasons. In the first place Roosevelt ordered both a draft and a general mobilization putting the entire economy on a war footing. From the invasion of Pearl Harbor to V-J day the entire focus of the economy was supporting the military actions. Needless to say that has not happened, nor is it politically possible to do so at this point. The country simply does not have enough confidence in Bush's management of the invasion of Iraq to allow their kids to be drafted.

At the root of everything is that the country had the will to defeat Germany, and Japan, while Japan didn't kill as many in Pearl Harbor as the terrorists did in 9/11, the Germans most certainly would have continued the extermination of Jews had they been strong enough to reach our shores. That's what we're lacking today is will power, and I think it's because of a coalition of political leaders directly opposing Bush's efforts. War has been executed as good as you can expect. Of course, we're not going to start drafting people, because it's not necessary. I was making the point that America has the capabilities to start pumping out more warships and drafting marines at a moments notice. We could even increase the number of voluntary recruits by paying them more. The pay is currently 50% better than it was 5 years ago when I considered joining the military. I trust that you understand what our country is capable of, you're just using talking points that were targeted at ignorant fools who would believe that our military is stretched so thin as to make our homeland vulnerable to attack, but I don't think you're a fool.

Saddam was a secular leader, precisely the type of leader that the Islamists object to. The whole point of Al Qaeda was to replace 'apostates' like Saddam.

Woooo, maybe we should start building up Al Qaeda! I think you know less about Al Qaeda than I do, and that is not much! I know Al Qaeda #2 met with Saddam a number of years ago, I know Al Queda's stated purpose is to destroy all infidels (zionists). He may have hated Saddam for working with us against Iran, but things change. We were always the big target.

So you think Saddam would be helping us fight the Taliban? I think he would be doing the exact same thing Iran and Syria are doing right now, supporting terrorist operations to destabilize America's efforts, and the world would be just as much opposed to the invasion of Afghanistan as they are to Iraq. In case you haven't noticed, everything America does in the world is the target of massive criticisms, they criticize us for using the bomb to end WW2, they criticized Reagan for his cold war, everything will be criticized. As for your last sentence, I think this is another talking point gone bad. Al Zarqawi was simply hiding wherever he could, we weren't protecting him. Al Zarqawi has always been a criminal, a petty criminal, that's how Bin Laden saw him. He wasn't accepted anywhere he went.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[nickos]

"Religion of one form or another has always been a part of human history. People need something to believe in for reassurance and because it's human nature to want to find reasons for the universe etc."

We have science, and unlike religion, it's flexible and improves it's theories as it gathers more evidence. Religion is simply what we believed before we knew any better. It's superstitious claptrap and dangerous when taken literally.

We should fight terrorism and the causes of terrorism. Encouraging the promotion of science can only help.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[sglane81]

All prosperous religions are non-violent by nature. The KKK is a christian organization. The inquisitions were done for religion. The holy wars (crusades) were done in the name religion.

It's not the fault of the religions, it's the fault of the extremists.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[spiro_killglance]

Hindi's and Buddists are well known as the more
paceful religions, however the Tamil Tiger group
rather proves that hindism and boody violence aren't
incompatible.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Zeinfeld]

At the root of everything is that the country had the will to defeat Germany, and Japan,

If the country lacks the necessary will the fault lies in its leadership.

The problem is that it is not possible to trust what Bush and his administration say any more. They deliberately misled the country over the strength of their WMD intelligence. They have not even appologised for doing so.

It is also rather hard to see how the administration can win the war on terror while the US military are busy creating more terrorists in Abu Grhaib and Guantanamo. Nobody in the chain of command has been held accountable for that blunder.

Of course, we're not going to start drafting people, because it's not necessary. I was making the point that America has the capabilities to start pumping out more warships and drafting marines at a moments notice.

The military has cut its recruitment targets in half and is still having problems meeting them. There are no marines sitting around waiting for something to do as you appear to believe.

I trust that you understand what our country is capable of, you're just using talking points that were targeted at ignorant fools who would believe that our military is stretched so thin as to make our homeland vulnerable to attack, but I don't think you're a fool.

It not what your country is capable of that I am worried about. it is what the leadership of that country is capable of. They do not appear to be capable of recognizing a mistake let alone admitting one. They have started a war based on faulty intelligence and utterly failed to make any planning for the occupation. Remember when we were being told that the invasion might 'be a cakewalk' and that the troops might 'be greeted with flowers'.

I do not have a lot of respect for 'leaders' who hold victory parades before the war is over.

I think you know less about Al Qaeda than I do, and that is not much! I know Al Qaeda #2 met with Saddam a number of years ago, I know Al Queda's stated purpose is to destroy all infidels (zionists).

Your 'facts' are way off. First off Dick Cheney has met with Saddam several times so a mere meeting does not say much. Second the aledged contact between Iraq and Al Qaeda was between an Iraqi diplomat, a suspected member of their secret service and a man who may have had links to Al Qaeda. The source of that allegation turns out to be on Ahmed Chalabai who is an Iranian agent known for fabricating all sorts of claims.

Second the purpose of al-Qaeda is to restore the Caliphate and impose Sharia law on all the former Islamic territories. Hence the attack in Spain. Third a Zionist is someone who believes in the establishment of a Jewish state (Zion) in the area now known as Israel. An infidel is either any non-muslim or someone who is not a muslim, Christian or Jew depending on the definition you want to use.

Also you might want to note that the Cold War took place in the time of Eisenhower and Kennedy. Nobody ever blamed Reagan for starting it.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[brpr]

Why do people not count Hussein as a terrorist?

They do. Where have you been for the past 3-4 years? Stuffing straw men, perhaps.

And if the polls are showing people thinking Bush is "evil" I'm losing faith in the mindset of the left even more than ever. Just because you're not under attack on home ground and don't hear people running and screaming is no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.

How evil Saddam Hussein is, and the fact that America happens not to have experienced a terrorist attack in the past 4 years, are totally irrelavent to the question of whether or not GWB is evil. Personally, I wouldn't pretend to know enough about the man to know one way or the other, but one thing's for sure: the sooner he's out of office, the better for everyone.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[danheskett]

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.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Zeinfeld]

Congratulations, you have been successfully brainwashed by the Democrats. Bush never claimed Saddam was involved with 9/11. But you go right on ahead and keep spouting that idiocy to brainwash some more lefties.

That is the impression he intentionally created and maintained. He had other people tell the lies for him of course but there is absolutely no difference between doing that and telling the lie yourself.

Bush has certainly linked 9/11 to the need to eliminate Saddam in repeated speeches. He certainly did so in a manner that was intended to cause listeners to come to that conclusion. He did not take any steps to clarify his statements after his political party and its surrogates made that interpretation.

Strictly speaking it is also true that the administration never said that Saddam had a nuclear bomb, but Rice did say 'we don't want the first hard evidence to be a mushroom cloud over an American city'.

When people play rhetorical games and doublespeak the way the Bush administration has it is entirely reasonable to call them on the interpretation they intended people to make.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ghost_world]

OK, since nobody has bothered so far, I'll call "bullshit"...

Sure, Saddam was a brutal dictator and obvious asshole, but these are not the traits generally associated with a "terrorist". He had no known links to those that we do know of as terrorists - which is something you cannot say about many rulers the Middle East - and according to the CIA right before the war, posed no credible threat to the US of A. How many other tyrants are out there do you think? Yup, very many, but most of them are smart enough to let the US do what it wants when it wants to. We're typically very happy with our brutal dictators.

As for the Chimp: "evil" may be too strong a word and "idiot" is not necessarily accurate (although that's about all I can think of when I hear him speak)... but in no way has he "kept attacks from happening". He has used 9/11 as a VERY thinly veiled excuse to achieve the goals of his constituency (read: "rich people - particularly in the energy industry").

Now you are no safer (probably less safe), but good ol' US companies can pump oil out of the ground in Iraq and build pipelines through Afghanistan. Yay!

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[dalutong]

well -- there are things more important than dead ppl right now.

that's one of our major problems. we obsess over the right-now. (wrt iraq) we need to stop worrying about how many soldiers are killed (and retaliating) and focus on development. THAT should affect politics. things that will matter in 30 years, not things that matter right now.

as for london -- it's a tragedy. but they have to keep focusing on international development. it will take many years of loss, just as gandhi's or mandela's struggle took many years of loss, but it will end in a lasting peace that trying to kill all the bad guys won't provide.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[absinthminded64]

I don't disagree.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[dajak]

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.

Osama bin Laden explained quite eloquently why in his speech addressed to the American people before the election. A fragment:

"People of United States, this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan and deals with the war and its causes and results.

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar in human life and that free men do not forfeit their security contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain why did not strike - for example - Sweden.

And we know that freedom haters do not possess defiant spirits like those of the 19. Allah have mercy on them. No, we fight because we are free men who do not sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our Nation, and just as you lay waste to our Nation so shall we lay waste to yours.

I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real cause, and thus the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred. So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and I shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike towers. But after we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the America/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a complicated way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American 6th fleet helped them in that. And the whole world saw and heard but did not respond.

In those difficult moments many hard to describe ideas bubbled in my soul but in the end they produced intense feelings of rejection of tyranny and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressors in kind and that we destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."

He may be lying, of course, but it is a much more plausible explanation than "hating freedom" and nonsense like that. Besides, if you terrorize people into doing what you want, you will have to explain to them what you want. From 9/11 onwards the "war" has carried its own momentum; A single solution to it no longer exists.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Zeinfeld]

You are a forgiver and enabler of terrorists plain and simple. Make all the excuses and rationalizations you like, but you are forgiving the horrors carrier out by racist, mysogonist monsters. You are filth even lower than a child molester.

So saying that Bush should have killed Bin Laden when it had the chance is forgiving him?

What a curious crackpot ideology you appear to believe in.

Or maybe you are just used to calling everyone who disagrees with you for any reason a terrorist because that is easier than thinking.

I don't think Bush is on the terrorists side. I just think that he is the US equivalent of Neville Chamberlain, a weak incompetent leader who had to be removed before there could be any real hope of success in the war. Churchill was not unpatriotic when he said that Chamberlin's appeasement policy had failled. Lloyd George was not unpatriotic when he said the country had lost confidence in him.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[wronski]

maybe our support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip? we have given the Israeli's millions of dollars AND weapons and aircraft. what have we given the people whos land we took to give to them? several hundred thousand dollars and no protection from a military who has killed thousands of palistinian children.
think about it - if 10 or 20 years ago an american hellicopter came in and blew up your dad or your uncle or your brother or your friend you'd be pissed wouldn't you. Lucky for you, you're American. You will most likely never have to experience someone coming onto your soil and accidentally killing your friends and/or family because they had to shove their nose where it didnt belong. Unfortunately, this new "war on terror" in a nation that never once supported bin laden (in fact, bin laden HATED hussein) and who never once threatened or attacked any US citizen outside of their own country - is creating the next generation of terrorist. Look at the children you see in the news footage now - we are killing their big brothers, fathers and uncles, and because of it - your child may be stuck fighting them in the next war.

Except they didn't. None of the perpetrators of 9/11, Madrid or Bali had family members killed by americans. None of them were Iraqui, Afghani or Palestinian. This notion that people decide to become terrorist becouse a f16 killed they grandma is silly. The notion that if you do what the terrorist want they will go home and become model citizens is beyond silly. I don't recall any suicide bombings in Alabama in the 60s, or India in th 40s, or South Africa in the 80s. And there are lots of reasons why Israel should get out of the occupied territories, but being what the terrorists want is not one of them.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Zeinfeld]

You mean al-Zarqawi been terrorist since he was 13 years old? Well, as far as I know he was indoctrined in 1996 and in 1999 he joined Afghanistan liberation war. Thereafter he traveled to iraq when "war on terror" attacked it.

al-Zawahri is the one time leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, now the ideological leader of Al Qaeda.

al-Zarqawi was a small time criminal operating in Iraq who pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda after the US invasion.

They are two completely different people. al-Zawahri is the one who was behind the assasination of Saddat and 9/11.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[VidyaDas]

Israel is to blame for Al Qaeda and Jaish E Mohammed killing people in places like Kashmere, Thailand, Indonesia, Sudan and the Philipines too, right?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[OhNotSeven]

Why do people not count Hussein as a terrorist?

You make a very valid argument here. So let's go invade china, north korea, sudan (for darfur), and all those countries. Let's go spread freedom all around the world, and rid those poor bastards of their terrorist rulers. Noble thought, but I smell something fishy here. The US did *not* go to Iraq for that reason. A country has to be expedient about picking fights. And validly so. There were other reasons for Iraq, as many ./ers have already so eloquently described.

The Bush admin has been successful in keeping the attacks from happening, and I am happy for that, and I congratulate them for each extra eventless day. But the invasion of Iraq has resulted in loss of focus from Afghanistan, and the monster of Iraqi insurgency is the added rub here.

Iraqi insurgancy is the much needed oxygen to the terrorists. Not focusing in Afghanistan was the point when they may have found some regrouping time. So it was almost like bottling the djinn and forgetting to cap the bottle.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[zardo]

If the country lacks the necessary will the fault lies in its leadership.

You take this to mean GW Bush, I think there are others to blame, like almost every Democrat in the senate. They're using this to advance their own politics, they want to weaken Bush's leadership ability and the war is the perfect avenue for that. Making a big hoopla over some humiliating acts in Abu Graib prison is one example of our poor leadership, has nothing to do with GW's leadership style as it was not his role to prevent that sort of stuff, that was a failure lower down in the ranks.

Apologizing to the world would be an example of what a leader SHOULDN'T do, especially in time of war. It is the same as admitting to a mistake, and we don't think the Iraq war is a mistake like you do. THat's why you don't see apologies! You read up on Vietnam and find out why we lost that war, it was because of the stupid politics you're supporting, apologies and pussy footing.

The military has cut its recruitment targets in half and is still having problems meeting them. There are no marines sitting around waiting for something to do as you appear to believe.

You're a liar. The military has been increasing it's recruitment goals over the last few years, significantly, and they have only in the last few months failed to meet their goal. That is expected to change by years end.

I know a guy who's sitting around waiting to go back to Iraq. He's sure he'll have to go back, he just doesn't know when... I know another guy who just enlisted, he said there were over a hundred people at the enlistment office when he was there. Back when I enlisted, there were maybe 2 dozen. They aren't using all the armed forces at once, theres something like 250,000 deployed in the middle east out of like 700,000 servicemen. Get your facts straight, retard.

The Al Queda #2 was Zawahiri, and if you do some googling you'll find reports that he met with Saddam Hussein in 1992. APparently there are many links between Saddam Hussein and these terrorists: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=34841 If you want to beat that bush further, go right ahead. I think it's pretty stupid of you to claim that all the other middle east countries had connections with terrorism but that Iraq didn't.

Next, you want to assign some benevolent mission to Al Qaeda, like they have a just purpose, which is silly, and their stated purpose is to destroy the infidels/zionists. They use the words interchangeably to mean all of wester civilization, so don't get technical on me like you know more than Al Queda knows about it's self. Listen to reason, retard. Guess you're not as bright as I first suspected.

The cold war started right after WW2 when the soviets took over east Berlin, and ended with the fall of the Berlin wall, which was during the Reagan administration. How'd you interpret what I said as "Reagan started the cold war"? You're an idiot, and apparently you know very little about the cold war if you think it was limited to Eisenhower and Kennedy. Reagan dealt directly with the soviets in an arms race, it was his entire foreign policy. You remember? "Mr. Gorbachev, Tear down that wall!" Oh you probably weren't born yet!

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[drmerope]

That may well be, but we gave lots of people aid--not just Israel.

Top three USAID recipients (2001):
Israel 2.8B--a good chunk of which is loans
Egypt 1.9B
Jordan .2B

You're engaging in pure speculation as regards the consequences of the Iraq war. Hussein was a war criminal who slaughtered millions--he had to go. This preoccupation with present possession of WMD was wrong when Bush first mentioned it, and it is wrong now. The fact remains that the man was a long-term threat reviled by the citizens of Iraq. Perhaps you should remember that the headquarters of the Iraqi Olympic committee was in fact a front for a large torture facility?

Sorry, I can't help but think that we did the moral thing in Iraq--even if some people opted to do it for the wrong reasons.

I am not of the opinion that America stands for "unfettered majority rule". We've never accepted the idea that a society can pursue any illiberal policies it wishes. No, we're a fundamentally liberal country--albeit in the British, not the French sense of the word, and as a consequence can you really justify turning a blind eye to authoritarianism around the world?

I agree, we're being attacked because we're in the way, but it's because we're standing in the way of authoritarianism.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[frank_adrian314159]

Islam has always been a melded church and state, even more so than the Catholics ever did.

All young religions that see the secular state as a threat do so initially. As the religious powers become more corrupted, a reformist movement usually arises that tries to again separate the secular from the holy. Islam is a very young religion (relatively speaking) and is at the height of its merger between state and theos. In addition, its leaders are becoming more corrupt (while all the while trumpeting their virtue). Sometime during the next few hundred years, I expect that a reformist Islamic movement will take hold and the world can get back to relative peacefulness (just in time for the Mormons or Bahai's to cause trouble :-). Of course, in between now and then, especially as we in the secular world give more moral ammunition to the people trying to enhance their pseudo-state (usually by invasion and causing death to their citizens), things will continue to be a bit dicey.

Political forecast for the next century: Cloudy, with a bit of terror...

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Qzukk]

I'll argue that there are less terrorists than before, and that their attacks are much less murdersome than before.

Except that there aren't. Someone else in this story quoted the US Government numbers that there have been more terrorist attacks so far this year than in all of 2004. Someone else posted a link to a pretty graphic showing the number of Americans who died of terrorism overseas (so as to exclude the WTC attacks) during Clinton's 8 years, and Bush's era has already managed to beat him in 5.

Different plans? Bush is right, we need to "stay the course". And by that, I mean fix Afghanistan, fix Iraq, and reach the ending point of "the course". Not go around and piss off even more fundamentalist groups. It's very reasonable to believe that Iran has The Bomb (despite their insistence that their nuclear program is entirely peaceful), and it's entirely possible that their new extra-fundamentalist (it was bad enough before) government may have enough psychotic people who believe their god will swat down any return fire to use it (if its like the movies, you only need one person on each key and a supercomputer to give you the code). We get Iraq a working army, a working police force. We get the country stable and self-sufficient enough that its new government can actually meet without someone getting assassinated.

Meanwhile, we sell off American interest in Iraq. Yeah, I'm sorry you don't get the cheap oil and I'm sure Halliburton will be pissed Cheney couldn't save it, but we set up Iraqi companies to pump the oil, Iraqi companies to run the pipelines. We trade reasonable contracts for business startup loans and the power to audit those companies and make sure that they're not producing crude and plastique. Suddenly that supply caravan isn't such a fun target when they're run by Iraqis, not Americans. A man pumping oil for a wage to support his family is no longer quite so desparate to blow himself up.

Finally, and this is the one we REALLY fucked up on, you cannot kill an idea with a bullet. You can only kill an idea with a better idea, the only way to win this war is to win everyone's minds. Do you know what idea we're fighting here? "America is Evil". Every day the kids go to their religious schools where they're told "America is Evil". Then they go home and turn on the news and see the latest bombing of someplace or another, always spun to make sure that "America is Evil". Finally, their best friend gets shot in the street, probably he didn't see who did it, these days it probably wasn't even an American. But what does that kid scream? "America is Evil!" It is this that we are fighting against. If we are to win, we must change that droning chant in their mind to something preferrably less malign, or at least so something along the lines of "Terrorist fundamentalists are Evil"

After the war, Allied soldiers stood around at German schools handing out nutrition bars. Why? 1: Warm fuzzies all around 2: Had any remaining psycho German holdouts decided to strike, they'd have inevitably killed German kids. Had they killed German kids, FULL ON MEDIA BLITZ! Headline after headline, broadcast after broadcast denouncing the child killers. ARE THERE ANY NEAR YOU? ARE YOUR KIDS SAFE? Hotline phones would be ringing off the hook while the last of it was mopped up. The vast majority of Afghanistan's army not forced to fight at gunpoint by the Taliban special forces rolled over for us after a few leaflet bombing runs. People actually went around disarming booby-trapped oil wells. In Iraq, we can't even muster anything more than a weak cry of "You're killing other Muslims" when an insurgent strike kills innocent civilians. We can't even get so far as to strip them of their "freedom fighter" glorification by labelling them child slaughterers in the eyes of the media.

We probably could have had the "dancing in the streets" reception in Iraq we dreamed of had we played our cards right. Now we're stuck with the old maid, and our leadership can't pull off a poker face to save anyone's life.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[blueg3]

Yep. One of the primary U.S. moves that helped incite terrorist organizations was the long-term placement of troops in Saudi Arabia. We requested to place troops there to strike at Iraq, and we knew we weren't particularly welcome. We weren't supposed to stay long, but we always gave the Saudi leadership the option to ask us to leave. We didn't end the first Iraq war well, and so needed to station troops nearby (ie. in Saudia Arabia) for a while. They didn't ask us to leave. Unfortunately some individuals, particularly bin Laden (and much of Saudi royalty) didn't appreciate this turn of events.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[geekee]

"You cannot bring about peace with war."

It was necessary in WWII, and essentially worked. If there is an agressor that won't listen to reason, the only way to oppose this threat is with force.

The war on terror is necessary, just like a police force is necessary to fight crime. The way the war on terror is currently being fought, however, is certainly questionable.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Temsi]

The only way we'll ever minimize the threat of terrorism (it will never, ever go away), is by changing OUR policies so that we don't create as many enemies around the world.
There is a reason why these people hate us so much, and it has to do with how we've treated them...
We don't give a shit about any of them, unless they have something to offer us, in the form of oil or other exports we need/want.
Look at the genocide in Rwanda... Nobody cared.
Look at a bunch of small African nations that are starving to death, and nobody cares enough to offer any real help... because there's no direct financial benefit. The "what's in it for me" idealism is what's fucking up this planet.

There are more terrorists now than before, not fewer - I don't know where you get that idea, unless of course you've been listening to Bush/Blair.
The terrorist groups may be splintered and not as organized, but they're still there, still plotting and obviously still carrying out their plans.
Where's Bin Laden? Why don't we care?
Why don't we find the mofo and string him up by his balls? Why is protecting the second largest oil field in the world more important than finding the guy who masterminded the biggest terrorist attack on US Soil, when at the same time the war in question is called "the War on Terrorism"?!?

It's long overdue that the people of the US and the UK start questioning the motives and ideals of their leaders. They're not telling us the truth, and they're supposed to be working FOR us.

Bush made Blair his bitch soon after 9/11.
That project should therefore be called The Blair Bitch Project.

A different plan, you say?
Withdraw from Iraq and let the Iraqis rebuild their own country the way they want to (we blew it up, so we should pay for it, but with dollars, not lives).
Find Bin Laden and put him on PUBLIC trial, not some closed military tribunal like Hussein. By having it public, it doesn't look to the outside world like we have something to hide.
Remove NeoCons from power wherever they are found. They're fascists and imperialists, and they are a clear and present danger to world peace. They're modern day versions of Nazis and Stalinists. It's only a matter of time before they get powerful enough to start killing people they don't like (although some would argue they started that with Iraq, and Iran being next on the list).
Spend serious time and money developing alternate sources of fuel. We must clean ourselves up... we're oil junkies and the middle east is our dealer. Until we break free of that addiction, there will be problems and friction between us and them.

Roundtable discussions will not work, because the terrorists are fringe groups that have splintered from what used to be legitimate political ideals. However, that doesn't mean we should just keep killing them wherever they pop up like it's a game of whack-a-mole. We MUST change the policies that create terrorists.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Zeinfeld]

He may be lying, of course, but it is a much more plausible explanation than "hating freedom" and nonsense like that. Besides, if you terrorize people into doing what you want, you will have to explain to them what you want. From 9/11 onwards the "war" has carried its own momentum; A single solution to it no longer exists.

The 'hating freedom' rhetoric is off the mark but it is also in some ways true.

It is a mistake to think that cults like al Qaeda are entirely rational or irrational. They are rational insofar as they do actually have a political program of sorts. But their behavior is also highly irrational and frequently borders on insanity.

In the case of the Red Army Faction (Baader-Meinhof gang) the second generation recruits were actually certified as insane. They were recruited from a mental asylum by a psycharatrist who 'diagnosed' the cause of their mental illness to be capitalism (the sanity of the psychiatrist...).

One thing that almost all terrorist groups share is a complete inability to put themselves in the shoes of their opponents. The IRA had that they were going to bomb the Brits out of northern ireland, they don't seem to have heard about Adolph Hitler or the London blitz.

Al Qaeda is not a completely rational group, they are really a sort of cult. But pretending that they do not have political goals does not help the situation, nor does pretending that the entire Islamic world supports them. Al Qaeda does have very specific political goals that include establishing the 'Caliphate' to rule all the former Islamic territories including and in particular Palestine and Saudi Arabia.

Support for Al-Qaeda in the islamic world is pretty thin. For a start they consider muslims who don't follow the Sunni Whahabi sect to be apostate. Iraq is mostly Shia and only a small minority of the Sunnis are Whahabi. Support for Al Qaeda amongst the Palestinians is pretty thin as well - that is why after 9/11 both Hamas and Arafat condemned the attack. Still CNN repeatedly showed a clip of 8 people celebrating the attack.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[geekee]

" Funding Israel's random killing of everyone who actually lived there"

I think you're a little confused about who's doing the random killing in that region. Have you noticed that violence there has decreased susbstantially since the death of Arafat. The whole cycle of violence claim way bs. There was no cycle. It was cause-efect. Hamas, etc. attacks, Israel retaliates. Attacks stop. Retaliation stops.

Your assessment of Saudi Arabia is a little oversimplified but somewhat accurate. Bin Laden doesn't like us supporting the Saudi Govt., because they are not as fundamentalist as he would like.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Ztream]

Uhm, I think you're confused about the word "terrorist". It is not equivalent with "someone who is not good". Look it up.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Zeinfeld]

Yes. And the US also slipped up in 1996 as well, and allowed Osama Bin Laden to escape to Afghanistan. It's easy to see what should've been done, in hindsight...

Read the article you link to. It is not clear that there ever was that option on the table. Bin Laden married into the Sudanese government clan. The idea that they would have handed over a member of the family is not very credible.

Moreover Bin Laden was one of them. The government of Sudan is only one step away from Talibanism. They are currently conducting a genocide in Darfur.

There is also a major difference in failing to act before 9/11 and failing to act afterwards. It was only after Bin Laden moved to Afghanistan that the Embassy and Cole bombings occurred.

If you care to look at any of my previous posts you will find that I have been entirely consistent here - as is almost all of the left. We think that it was and is a mistake to start any action in Iraq before both Bin Laden and al-Zawahri are eliminated. I said that before the invasion and I said it again when Chamberlain was holding his victory parade on that air craft carrier.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[scbomber]

other republicans make the claim for him...

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[fingusernames]

Give me a break. Did they declare jihad and plan massive attacks on Assad for Hama? Hussein for Kuwait, for the Marsh Arabs, for the Kurdish Muslims, for the Iran-Iraq war, all that he did? India for the Muslims killed in Kashmir, to this very day? The terrorists don't give a rat's ass for the dead Palestinians.

Why do they hate us? Essentially, because we won and they lost. What did we win? The battle of civilizations. The Islamic world was once pre-eminent. Muslim armies had conquered all the way into Spain. Muslim science and learning was supreme. Ever hear of the Ottoman Empire? And then what? Decline. Failure. Defeat. Poverty. Oppression by homegrown tyrants (yes, often backed by Britain, France, and the United States among others). If not for oil and the infrastructure the Western powers built and then handed over to the Arabs, they would be even more pathetic than they are now.

Now they have to live with a band of lowly Jews, kicked out of Judea 2000 years ago by Vespasian and his son, scattered, nearly exterminated by Hitler, robbed of their property and wealth, who in their own midst came back to their ancient home and created a powerful, successful democratic nation. Right in their own back yard. Showing up just how low the Arab Islamic world has fallen. When all the Arab Muslim nations ganged up on them in 1948 to drive every last Jew into the sea, what happened? The evil Zionists defeated them ALL, and took *more* land. Another war, and another Muslim defeat, and yet *more* land captured. Including *all* of Jerusalem.

And as for the poor, poor oppressed Palestinians. Offered the vast majority of what they demanded in exchange for peace, Arafat walked away. Anything less than 100% isn't good enough. Let us get this straight: Arabs declare war, attack Israel, Israel kicks their asses TWICE and takes some of their land as spoils, and now Arabs whine "give us back all of our land, not fair, wah wah." It reminds me of Xenophon, when "the King" demanded the weapons of the Greeks, and Proxenus the Theban responded "For my part, Phalinus, I wonder whether the King is asking for our arms on the assumption that he is victorious, or simply as gifts, on the assumption that we are his friends. For if he asks for them as victor, why need he ask for them, instead of coming and taking them? But if he desires to get them by persuasion, let him set forth what the soldiers will receive in case they do him this favor."

Then there is this latest "intifada." What do the Palestinians trot out as their justification for killing, blowing up, murdering? The fact that Sharon when somewhere holy to Jews. Not that Sharon killed anybody (at least not that day I suppose), not that Sharon when and spit on a Koran. No, he went somewhere and prayed. And in that, the Palestinians see justification for KILLING. "But Sharon, he actually *WENT* to a wall!! We have to kill!" Uncivilized barbarians.

Yes, Israel treats the Palestinians very badly. But they could have had peace years ago, and they have rejected it. They could have taken routes other than murder of civilians, suicide bombings, throwing crippled Americans off of cruise ships, murdering Olympic athletes. They could recognize that the Jews have an equally valid, if not even more valid, claim to Jerusalem. They could refrain from making even archaeology a political issue because it shows that Jews, incredibly obvious it may be, were there long before Muslims. The Palestinians are far from innocent in this conflict, and don't seem too interested in ending it on any realistic basis. They aren't going to get back Jerusalem, and they aren't going to get every inch of land back to the 1969 border. It isn't going to happen. And until they recognize reality and deal with it, I have a hard time being sympathetic for their overall situation. The Arabs lost that land due to their war of aggression against Israel. It is gone. The Jews are there, Israel is there, the Zionists are there, and they aren't going away.

Now back to Bin Laden and so on. Why ar

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Daedalus-Ubergeek]

So far from reducing the hot spots that breed terrorism , invading Iraq and removing Saddam has actually increased the number of countries the terrorists could shelter in.

I suppose his "charitable" donations of $10,000-$25,000 to the families of suicide bombers supports this argument? I'm sure he would dedicate his life to fighting terror across the middle-east too, but he was probably just too busy gassing kurds and... writing checks.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Temsi]

Very well said.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[OpenSourceOfAllEvil]

No no no. It's just that moderators are randomly selected from the common people, the salt of the earth, the common clay, you know... morons.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[PopCulture]

yeah. that worked for the Crusades, didn't it. Or the communists during the cold war... too bad we didn't nuke half the planet (many of whom constitute the 'coalition of the willing' in our current clusterfuck war) back to the stone age when we had the chance.

just remember- the US supported Hussein in my lifetime, with full knowledge of what as going down in Iraq. The US supported the mujahideen, from which Osama Bin Laden draws his fame and ideologies. Maybe the solution isn't to 'kill them all', so much as it is to take the correct actions in the first place.

you obviously have not studied history very much... either that, or you are exceedingly bad at it.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Pansy]

What makes you think that you trying to foist your religious beliefs on me will make me more likely to donate money than a well reasoned argument for donating said money?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Pansy]

Yeah, we only protect the countries where we have vested corporate interests! So open up your borders to free trade and prepare to be bankrupted or get used to stuff blowin up.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[PopCulture]

The Al Queda #2 was Zawahiri, and if you do some googling you'll find reports that he met with Saddam Hussein in 1992

yeah. Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam in 1983. Maybe you would like to expand upon the United States' relationship with Saddam?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

by the way,the article you posted showing a link between Al-Queda and Saddam Hussein was 2 years old, and COMPLETELY disproved by the republican appointed 9/11 Comission.

you're pretty much an idiot at this point.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[BigDogCH]

I agree entirely. But, in many instances, the governments brain-wash the people into hating another culture. In a country such as ours, yes, we can cause change. Many countries are too far stuck however. Look at the situation in the schools of North Korea right now. Seriously, it will scare the crap out of you. The children are being taught that they will each one day sacrifice their lives to stop the "american nazis". They truely believe this, and will someday die with honor killing americans. It is sad, but true. All of this, yet Bushy decides to invade Iraq, the single nation in the middle east without terrorist connections. The single nation which was following the rules of warfare. Sadam was not nice to his people, and he should die for it, but look around. There is much worse going on around the world, and we are ignoring it.

Here I sit trying to voice my rights, and help us take control of our government, yet even the /. crowd only makes wise cracks about my spelling, ignores the true content, and insists that the US is doing things correctly. Sad indeed.

You are correct, but in many instances it just doesn't work that way. Excellent point though.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[siplus]

Replace "decades" with "millenias"

This east vs west thing has been going on much longer than recent history. All the way back past the crusades, back to greeks vs persians.

There has always been hatred in general, not just hatred of us meddling in their affairs. If we leave the region and take our money with us, they will hate us for that. if we stay and continue to pump money into the area, (most) will be thankful for the benefits, and some will hate us (muslim radicals).

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[cyberbob2010]

That's funny, my BROTHER IN LAW was KILLED (born in Florida, US citizen all the way) while working for a contracting company in... Kuwait. Last time I checked, that wasn't in Iraq.
So you're a liar (I went to the funeral, he was most certainly dead) and since liars disgust me, you can shut up now.
Really, do you think lying to convince people makes you seem more connected to the process? Like you have some rare insight that others don't?
SORRY BUT YOU'RE A LIAR. STOP LYING.
im sorry for your loss but i have to ask. he was killed in kuwait - by iraqis? are you sure?

Israel does a lot of nasty things, but without US support they'd all be slaughtered in a much more nasty way than anything that's happening to the Palestinians. The only possibly moral thing for the US to do is to protect Israel at the same time while trying to negotiate for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

once again i am not some anti-seminist nazi - all i am saying is that we need to look at things through these people's eyes before we demonize them. there are better ways to solve this than through war. oh, and there is a difference between keeping the jews alive and allowing palestinians who have been cut off from their homes and or work to rot.

We stood up to a bully and tried to protect the little guy. We made mistakes, but our intentions were laudable. If you forget about the techniques employed by these 'freedom fighters' and look at their goals and motivations you see that we should be trying to stop them even if their tactics were in accord with the Geneva conventions.

once again you are missing my point. the point is that we call them evil and say that they do horrible things without thinking why. the question is why and once we look at the things that we do to provoke such responses - be they right or wrong, extreme or not - we can begin to make peace. this war WILL NOT END through violence. their tactics? how about "smart" bombs that have hit schools and hospitals on accident because we don't truly want to get our hands dirty. like i said - its all about perspective and most of you seem to be sorely lacking it.

Fact is we should have invaded Afghanistan years before 9/11. We should have stopped the Taleban -- even though many innocents would die in such a war -- because they were evil, and the US has an ideological obligation to fight such fights.

no doubt and after 9/11 we had all the more reason to go in but after afghanistan we went into iraq and we have yet to do anything about saudi arabia and we have yet to show that we actually care about the iraqi people. what kind of people do we look like when we put more defense on their oil fields than we do on their museums and national treasures after the invasion

Why do they hate us? Essentially, because we won and they lost. What did we win? The battle of civilizations. The Islamic world was once pre-eminent. Muslim armies had conquered all the way into Spain. Muslim science and learning was supreme. Ever hear of the Ottoman Empire? And then what? Decline. Failure. Defeat. Poverty. Oppression by homegrown tyrants (yes, often backed by Britain, France, and the United States among others). If not for oil and the infrastructure the Western powers built and then handed over to the Arabs, they would be even more pathetic than they are now.

you people are so fucking ignorant. you want to talk about fucking loser societies and tyrants?
where the fuck do you think we got the USA? i mean really. with our green pastures and beautiful beaches etc.... I KNOW, WHY DONT YOU ASK THE FUCKING NATIVE AMERICANS?!?!?!
after that we can go to the carribean and ask them about how christopher columbus went around and chopped off every natives hands who couldnt bring him a certain amount of gold.....off of a fucking volcanic island!!
then lets go to south america and ask them what the dutch did that left them with a screwed up political system to this date.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[PopCulture]

wow.. since when has ignoring a problem been the best path ?

wow... since when is unilaterally invading a soveriegn foreign nation against the will of nearly the entire planet, and with false claims (9/11 connections, WMD "mushroom cloud" on our shores) the best path?

funny. I never even implied ignoring the problem was a solution.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[mr100percent]

CAIR, the Council for American-Islamic Relations
ICNA, The Islamic Circle of North America
ISNA, The Islamic Society of North America
MPAC, The Muslim Public Affairs Council
The Muslim American Society

They all have condemnations of the London bombings on their front pages.

Why do you assume they're silent? I don't assume that pro-life organizations were silent when abortion clinics were blown up. I didn't see them talking on CNN, but my common sense told me they didn't support it, just like these Muslim organizations. If you condemn something but Fox News doesn't bring you on as a speaker to get the message out, what can you do?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Ender_Wiggin]

Wow, what an offensive sig. Do you want to nuke the Vatican as well? How about Jerusalem to show the JDL a lesson? Don't stop there, what about flattening Amritsar to get those Sikhs in line too?

Is that your idea of Collective Punishment? Do you hold Meccans responsible for what terrorists do? Do you hold the Pope responsible for priests molesting children? The religious leaders have condemned these sort of actions that the extremists carry out. Attacking their Holy centers won't solve anything, and will make every moderate turn against you.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ncc74656]

[list snipped for brevity]

They all have condemnations of the London bombings on their front pages.

Does the word "taqqiya" mean anything to you? The Koran basically allows Muslims to lie to non-Muslims if there's some tactical advantage in it for them. With the indictments/convictions brought against various members of CAIR and other such organizations for terrorism-related activities (mostly financial support for the headchoppers and homicide bombers, not direct action), I'm not so sure I'd recommend putting much stock in anything they say.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ncc74656]

Wow, what an offensive sig. Do you want to nuke the Vatican as well? How about Jerusalem to show the JDL a lesson? Don't stop there, what about flattening Amritsar to get those Sikhs in line too?

Last time I checked, Catholics, Jews, and Sikhs weren't flying airliners into skyscrapers and blowing up buses and subways. They also weren't strapping on bomb belts and wandering into crowded shopping malls, nightclubs, and schools, or slicing off people's heads with rusty knives, or leaving bombs by the side of the road to kill whoever happens by.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[mr100percent]

No, that's not what "taqqiya" means. Taqqiya is a rarely-invoked allowance to conceal one's faith, if they feel they are in imminent danger of death or physical harm. If you put a gun to my head and ask me if I'm Muslim, I'm allowed to lie if I think it will save my life. That's the ONLY time it is allowed, and lying is a big sin in Islam otherwise. The doctrine is far more elaborated in Shiism, due to their history of persecution.

The Qur'an does not allow Muslims to lie except in the above case or during war, when one is allowed to deceive the enemy militarily, the verses ordering Muslims to be honest are numerous. Muslims can't lie in order to gain converts, God will not accept their deeds if they resort to such tactics. Taqqiya only applies to hiding your faith in God if you're threatened, and nothing else. The word is quite overblown and overrated among non-Muslims. It's the new buzzword of the anti-Islam crowd, since Jihad isn't really a word they can get a shock out of anymore. I can think of extremely few Muslims who are scholarly enough to know what the word even means, because the word and its definition is practically medieval.

*Sigh* I knew you were going to say something like that. Look, they say the attack was wrong and against Islam. I'm telling you that these organizations speak for Millions of American Muslims, I wouldn't brush them all off so quickly. Even if you think these groups are somehow evil terrorist fronts (which they're not), I see that their condemnation of the attack is matched by Muslim groups and Muslim country governments worldwide. Are you saying that these thousands of communiques and fatwas condemning the attack are all false, and just some "secret worldwide conspiracy with aims to take over the world"? Where have I heard that before?

I can vouch for these condemnations, there's a majority tremendous number of flag-waving patriotic Muslims out there, and they all believe terrorism is a sin and evil. They say it in their own Muslim circles as well, and it's a sin to lie to other Muslims, regardless of what you think this whole "Taqiyyah" business really is. What's frightening is that every group that oppressed another uses the same strategy of "We can't trust anything they say! They'll lie openly and through their teeth to hide their true evil intentions." Hitler used it on the Jews, the KKK made that claim about black civil rights groups, Iraqis accused Bush of concealing his imperialist intentions by using such soft and peaceful rhetoric, etc. Your suspicion is entirely unfounded unless you can tell me you've been with Muslims and asked them directly about it.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[dajak]

The 'hating freedom' rhetoric is off the mark but it is also in some ways true.

It is a mistake to think that cults like al Qaeda are entirely rational or irrational. They are rational insofar as they do actually have a political program of sorts. But their behavior is also highly irrational and frequently borders on insanity.

It is clear that you cannot directly negotiate with a terrorist movement. Even when you reach an agreement, Al Qaeda cannot stop terrorism. It has a momentum of its own.

When reacting to it you can only react to the demands it makes publicly. The freedom hating rhetoric is completely off the mark because Osama bin Laden speaks of freedom continually.

Potential support of Al Qaeda is indeed limited to a small slice of the muslim population, but my perception is not that support is limited or shrinking. Wahhabism is becoming a mainstream faction among young muslims in Europe. The failure of the US government to address what Al Qaeda wants, and the perceived deception, plays a large part in that.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[liloldme]

They publicly defied the US.

Yes, that's a mortal sin.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[WhiplashII]

Well, you can argue about what is fair or not, granted. But given that the US had to attack a middle eastern government to show the others the terrorism is not a way to avoid blame for your actions, Iraq was a good choice. No one cares about Afganistan - I don't think anyone on Earth really thought they could stand up to the US. A lot of middle easterners thought that Iraq was impervious to the US, so taking it down caused a lot of change in middle eastern government. (As in, Iran used to say "They can't take Iraq, so if I am less irritating than Iraq I'm safe")

It is unfortunate that defying those in power is a "mortal sin," but that is politics. If you can create a stable system where that isn't true, I'll join you in a heartbeat - but until then I really recomend not anoying those in power. Even if they are "moral" and do not squish you for bugging them, when they have to choose between saving you and saving your neighbor, they will choose your neighbor...

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[mmaddox]

My god, a decent person with a constructive reply. You're awesome, man. Wish there were more like you.

Although I made the comment, I'm not sure where I stand on the concept of America as the policeman/moral-authority of the world. Although I'm certainly not an isolationist, I'm not sure that we should nose our way into all the world's problems, either. It seems we go into these things with the best intentions, but our actions are always blundering mistakes.

I do hold a people responsible for the actions of its government, and I do think there are folks who REALLY need help, I'm not sure that there's not some point that you have to recognize that the costs to help them will be too great. It's probably immoral, but is there a point where you just stand back and let people destroy themselves because you are tired of risking your own sons and daughters? How do you teach people to stand up for freedom that they don't seem to understand or want?

I've a lot more thought on this. I need to do some more reading and a lot more writing and re-writing. Thanks for spurring me to action.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[DeputySpade]

That's my line!

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[zardo]

You're talking about an entire race of people. It's as if you're trying to change what I said to "kill all arabs" or "kill all iraqi's", what I said was "kill all terrorists".

As for Hussein, you could also beat around the bush and say we should never have allowed slavery during colonization, but we're beyond that now, and it took a lot of fighting to correct that mistake. You make illogical analogies. If a gun store owner were to sell a man a gun and he goes and kills his family with it, do you hold the gun store owner accountable?

You have to take a position here, either you support insurgencies in countries where regime change is necessary, or you ignore the problem entirely, or you go in there and change it yourself. We have had success both ways, but never by ignoring the problem. The problem, if left unchecked, will get worse. I take it you would ignore the problem entirely.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[zardo]

If you want to live your life trying to please everyone around you, go right ahead, but thats not how the rest of the world operates. You'll find yourself getting used a lot.

As it is, we do get used a lot. We give more african aid than any other country, and it does nothing to help, the money mostly goes into the hands of warlords. They need REGIME CHANGE! You fools just say "ah, throw money at them! That'll fix it!" That is the most selfish thing. I have friends who're over there fighting in Iraq, that believe in the cause of freedom. You're just a fucking moron if you think pulling out is the answer. You're just a fucking moron. Blair bitch project, ha ha ha! funnnnnny!

Protecting the oil field is actually very important, as the world economy is dependant on it, so while people in the first world may pay higher gas prices, people in the third world will be dieing of starvation. You need to understand that the world economy is very complicated, every action has hundreds and thousands of reactions.

Oh my god I'm not even gonna respond to any of your other nonsense. You're a fucking moron.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[zardo]

Except that there aren't. Someone else in this story quoted the US Government numbers that there have been more terrorist attacks so far this year than in all of 2004. Someone else posted a link to a pretty graphic showing the number of Americans who died of terrorism overseas (so as to exclude the WTC attacks) during Clinton's 8 years, and Bush's era has already managed to beat him in 5.

You're ignoring 9/11 entirely. I'm measure since 9/11, and I wouldn't soldiers KIA terrorism, that's war. Once you weigh in the 3,000+ civilians who died in 9/11 the figures change significantly.

Meanwhile, we sell off American interest in Iraq. Yeah, I'm sorry you don't get the cheap oil and I'm sure Halliburton will be pissed Cheney couldn't save it, but we set up Iraqi companies to pump the oil, Iraqi companies to run the pipelines. We trade reasonable contracts for business startup loans and the power to audit those companies and make sure that they're not producing crude and plastique. Suddenly that supply caravan isn't such a fun target when they're run by Iraqis, not Americans. A man pumping oil for a wage to support his family is no longer quite so desparate to blow himself up.

The Iraqi oil assets will undoubtedly be owned and operated by the state, once it's ready. I don't know what you heard about Haliburton, but they're contracted to build the things, they dont own them, although I think Iraq should pay us back in oil for the price of their new and improved country. It really has little effect on their economy, gas is 5 cents per gallon in Iraq.

As for Iran, I think they see nuclear armaments as the only way to prevent America from sparking a revolution in their country. Everybody knows they need a revolution, we're just hoping it comes about on its own. I think we'll have to destroy their reactor eventually, if the Israeli's destroy it it will only cause more fighting.

Finally, and this is the one we REALLY fucked up on, you cannot kill an idea with a bullet. You can only kill an idea with a better idea, the only way to win this war is to win everyone's minds. Do you know what idea we're fighting here? "America is Evil". Every day the kids go to their religious schools where they're told "America is Evil". Then they go home and turn on the news and see the latest bombing of someplace or another, always spun to make sure that "America is Evil". Finally, their best friend gets shot in the street, probably he didn't see who did it, these days it probably wasn't even an American. But what does that kid scream? "America is Evil!" It is this that we are fighting against. If we are to win, we must change that droning chant in their mind to something preferrably less malign, or at least so something along the lines of "Terrorist fundamentalists are Evil"

You are right on, except for the "we fucked up" part. I don't know how you expect anything to change without military intervention. Diplomacy hasn't worked. You're advocating a Clintonesque foreign policy? I think Clinton just didn't want to deal with foreign policy. It was not some plan of his to ignore all the problems in the world, it was to protect his presidency from scrutiny. Killing terrorists is fine, it's justice. Regime change is a separate goal, but will ultimately solve the same problems. I expect the hate speech will dissipate when Iraq has a more open form of government, when the world press can go in there and see what their schools are like. When people are happy, when they have something to live for, whether it's the pool they want to build in their backyard, or the european sports car they want, or that trip to polynesia, when people are happy, there is a lot less to bitch about! Ask yourself why you don't care to hear someone elses hate speech? Why wouldn't you go and blow yourself up? It's cause you're happy, you're well off. The Iraqi's are going to start experiencing that now.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[zardo]

What if George Bush had met with Al Queda #2, would you have the same attitude? "Oh it's just a meeting!" Rumsfeld was a diplomat, Zawahiri was a terrorist.

As for the links between Saddam and Al Queda, it's just so silly of you fools to carry on with this. Saddam pledged $20,000 to the families of palestinian suicide bombers. That is direct support of terrorism! That article I gave had so many pieces of information, the 9/11 commission didn't completely disprove anything! The 9/11 commission came up with a lot of evidence to support the war, you liberals like to harp on one or two lines, like that there were no connections between Saddam and 9/11 (NEVERMIND THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA!). That is an oft mis-represented fact, Saddam actually DID have many ties to Al Queda, and those are just the ones we know of. Get your facts straight, moron. Read the damn 9/11 commission report, in full.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[PopCulture]

In addition, while meetings between Al-Qaida representatives and Iraqi government officials had taken place, the panel had no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had assisted al-Qaida in preparing for or carrying out the 9/11 attacks. The Report notes in Chapter 2 that "Bin Laden had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army."

source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commissio n_Report#Findings

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[PopCulture]

i hate to be an asshat and reply to my own post, but a link to the full report is here:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05aug20041 050/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

it suggests vague al-qaida ties to Iraq and a meeting or two, much less of a connection than that of many other middle east countries. Not really a cause for war.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[zardo]

So you're wrong? Is that what you're saying? You're a liar? That's what it sounds like...

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Zeinfeld]

It is clear that you cannot directly negotiate with a terrorist movement. Even when you reach an agreement, Al Qaeda cannot stop terrorism. It has a momentum of its own.

I don't spend my time trying to get into these people's heads in order to negotiate with them. The objective is to defeat them, in particular working out ways to cut them off from their support bases, create and exploit divisions within the movement etc.

When the RAF started they had a very large body of support amongst the left. As the bodies piled they were rejected. Same thing happened in Italy with the right wing Gladio fascist group behind the Blogna bombing.

The INLA was at one time the second largest republican terrorist group in Ireland. Their leadership literally mudered each other after an MI5 disinformation campaign. Today the group is completely defunct.

I thought that Ken Livingstone's statement on the London attacks was very good, he did not rely on any of the empty puffery that US politicians use. Instead he said that Al Aqaeda will loose because they want to tell people how they are to live and no matter how many people they kill we refuse to obey them.

The aspect of the Bush administration's rhetoric that is counterproductive is that they keep trying to score trite political points instead of saying that 99.9% of americans are utterly opposed to Al Qaeda. It is only playing into Al Qaeda's hands when they imply that only the republican party is seriously committed to fighting terrorism. When Rove attacks democrats for being weak on terror he is saying that Americans are weak. That is utterly not true, everyone is opposed to Al Qaeda.

Chuchill said 'WE will fight them on the beaches', not 'Conservatives will fight them'. He also formed a coalition government because he knew that forming a united front was important. Instead Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to ram through his own agendas that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Temsi]

Always fun to see a neocon start the personal attacks when responding to an argument.

Don't you know that when you attack the person with whom you're arguing, it means YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT!

How about responding to the fucking post instead of attacking me? None of what you said has any kind of logic or argument behind it, just more of the same empty right wing rhetoric I can hear any day of the week by tuning into Limbaugh or Hannity (i.e. inane, arrogant, stupid and lacking in logic).

The war in Iraq has about as much to do with "the cause of freedom" as your ass has to do with your keyboard functioning - then again, based on the way you're using your keyboard...

If any country needs regime change, it's ours.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[zardo]

What are you talking about now, blair bitch project dude? Free xbox dude? You're a fucking moron. What can I even say to someone who thinks a neo-con is a fascist? You have no fucking clue. You'd just as soon advocate removal by force of a democractically elected president as you would burn the American flag. Why don't you leave the country? Oh, still living with mommy, that's right.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Temsi]

Again, you're engaging in personal attacks.
And again, you're not engaging in a productive argument, because you cannot back up your emptyheaded and narrowminded statements with facts or logic.

And the "Why don't you leave the country?" line is stupid.
Why would you leave what you love?
Patriotism means fighting FOR the future of your country, even if it means you have to fight the idiots in charge. The country is more important than it's leaders. That's true patriotism.

But, you seem to be on a trolling rampage, judging by your other posts, so go ahead... spew more stupidity my way if you must.

How old are you anyway?
Based on your juvenile attitude, I'd say I moved from home long before you got hair on your ass.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Qzukk]

but forget all that, go with your instincts

Thats the problem, OUR instincts are different from what THEIR instincts are, for the same reason: How many people will believe whatever their pastor/priest/deacon/whatnot says? Why is that any different for Islam?

The "we fucked up" part is where we haven't accounted for this difference. Why are we not in control of the media? If it takes the CIA days to figure out whether a bin Laden tape was "authentic" or not, why have we not slipped a few fakes into the hands of the pro-islam media there in the hopes we can dupe them for long enough to sow major confusion and distrust: "Our glorious troops are now amassing in insert some podunk town here to wipe out the American infidels once and for all", where said town has been turned into the terrorist roach motel by the American army? "We have suffered our American invaders for too long, we have no choice but to strike at the cities they occupy, the holy hand of god will deliver our nuclear bombs into the hearts of the camps" (well, the second is probably not good for troop morale, so there's probably good reason we haven't tried that ;) The vast majority of Iraqi civilians are peaceful people, but they are afraid of both the terrorists and the Americans. All that is needed is to make the terrorists significantly scarier, to the point where civilians can no longer say "if I don't go near the base I will be safe" they'll work a little harder at ratting out the terrorists, in exchange for not being there when the cruise missile hits.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[BigDogCH]

"My god, a decent person with a constructive reply. You're awesome, man. Wish there were more like you."
I am also on this boat. Thanks for the reply.

"I'm not sure where I stand on the concept of America as the policeman/moral-authority of the world." I am also on this boat. I want to be a good guy, superhero nation, the hero to everyone, but it doesn't ever seem to turn out like it should. After 9/11 how many nations did we see sending us aid? How many times has the U.S. led relief efforts, just to find the world ignoring our requests for help.

I am not sure that areas like the middle east can ever be stable, and I am affraid it may be a lost cause. It is quite possible that a total ass dictator would be the only person who could keep the area stable. Think about this, the area is quite desolate, with large quantities of $$$ stored under the earth (oil). Combine this with the clashing cultures of the area, and you have a dangerous formula. Whomever controls the oil, has the $, and is a target. I don't quite see a way around this. I am admittendly undereducated on middle eastern culture though, so hopefully someone smarter than myself can find a ballance.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[zardo]

Well, I actually asked my friend in the army special forces "Why don't people rat these terrorists out when they are laying in an alley waiting for a convoy to pass by their roadside bomb?" and he said the army actually gives money to guys for ratting the terrorists out, so the terrorists now have to hide from the civilians. They are now using cordless phones wired to bombs, and that's the first thing he's trained to look for when he storms a house is a cordless phone base without the phone. That's what the military commanders mean when they say the bombs are getting more sophisticated. It just seems to me like more people would be opposed to the terrorists, and he confirmed that they are. They just don't want to get involved in the conflict, they want to hide in their houses when gunfire erupts. It's the silent majority. That's what I mean by go with your instincts, I think you can trust that they are on our side, even if they are greeting us with flowers everywhere we go.

As for taking over the media, you know that's not practical, if it's even possible. Al Jazeera is a private organization based in Qatar, one of our best middle east allies. But we deal with the same corrupt media here in the US, *cough* Dan Rather *cough* Newsweek.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Qzukk]

They just don't want to get involved in the conflict, they want to hide in their houses when gunfire erupts. It's the silent majority.

And THATS exactly what I'm talking about. As long as the people are too afraid to speak up, nothing will change. It won't matter if we wipe out every last living Al Qaeda member, when the next group decides to take power, the "silent majority" will roll over for them too.

As for the media, I'm not exactly talking about storming some newspaper office and forcing people to write warm fuzzy stuff at gunpoint here, I'm talking about tricking them into showing fake tapes, spreading false information, and so on. Maybe our intelligence network really has atrophied over the years to the point where there is no intelligence left in it. It made some serious tactical blunders, like taking down Chalabi when he was a known good path for leaking anything we wanted. "Keep your enemies closer". How old is that saying?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[dajak]

I don't spend my time trying to get into these people's heads in order to negotiate with them. The objective is to defeat them, in particular working out ways to cut them off from their support bases, create and exploit divisions within the movement etc.

You have to understand them, and their supporters, to defeat them. If you want to shame them into submission by stressing the pile of bodies, which is a viable strategy in itself, you have to make sure that you keep clean hands yourself.

Their leadership literally mudered each other after an MI5 disinformation campaign. Today the group is completely defunct.

The relentless disinformation campaign of the present American administration seems to be designed to defeat the American people, not Al Qaeda and its supporters.

I thought that Ken Livingstone's statement on the London attacks was very good, he did not rely on any of the empty puffery that US politicians use.

I agree. I heard him make two statements on TV. The first one was good enough, the second one yesterday almost brilliant.

The aspect of the Bush administration's rhetoric that is counterproductive is that they keep trying to score trite political points instead of saying that 99.9% of americans are utterly opposed to Al Qaeda.

A weakness of modern American politicians in general, and Bush et alii most of all, is that when they are pretending to be addressing the world or the American people, they are actually just addressing voters. There is no distinction between diplomacy and internal politics any more. It seems like no speechwriter even cares about how a speech will be received in the rest of the world.

Chuchill said 'WE will fight them on the beaches', not 'Conservatives will fight them'.

Churchill was always very aware that the Nazis, and occupied Europe, were listening to everything he said. He was a great wartime leader in a way, but a mediocre politician.

Having said that, WWII is definitely not a good example to follow. It took most people in the world years to decide that siding with the Allied side was really the best thing to do. The Russians and British in particular were really unlikely good guys in those days, just like the Poles. It was not easy for people who had been conditioned into hating the Russians or British all their lives to recognize that the Nazis were even worse. We don't want to repeat that pattern.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[AoT]

Perhaps if you did not use right wing ideologues like front page mag as a source you would be more believable.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Ender_Wiggin]

Sikh extremists blew up a plane over Canada once. Catholics have some history of violence, go check out Northern Ireland, where places like crowded bars were bombed. Jewish extremists have bombed civillian homes and buildings in America (JDL) and Israel (Kach and Kahane Chai for starters).

Every religion has extremists, don't say it's specific to Islam.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[AoT]

You mean the money he gives to families whose houses have been destroyed by the Israelis in retaliation for something they took no part in?

Yeah, what a dick.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Qzukk]

So now a terrorist has driven a car bomb into the middle of a crowd of kids that the army was handing candy and toys out to. Can I call it or what? Where is the story? This morning, it's a paragraph or two on the bottom of my newspaper. CNN didn't even devote a whole story to it.

People talk about demonizing people (usually in reference to People in a broad term, like "Muslims") and how thats "bad", but our biggest failure in this war is our failure to demonize the real demons. As long as the "silent majority" can continue to shrug and not care, nothing changes. If the atrocities are not reported, what reason does Islam have to cut these terrorists out of their body? Why should we expect Saudi Arabia to quit supporting them? There is more at stake here than just what Iraqi newspapers report, the worldwide view is important as well.

As it stands, many of the Iraqi parents will probably blame the Americans just for being there, and the situation will get worse.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[deanj]

OK, how's this for a nice link:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binlade n061704/segment1.ram%5D

That'll take you to the ABC report linking them.

Btw, if anyone's an idiot, it's you. :-)

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[PopCulture]

I am an idiot, but only for a typo.

the only reason i was arguing in the 1st place (look back at the thread) was that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and the Iraq War is a tragic meaningless quagmire for the reasons stated (no wmd's, no 9/11 link.)

I could send you a bunch of links linking Bin Laden and/or Al-Qaida to the leaders or government representatives of Saudi Arabia, Syria, pretty much every nation in the middle east (and with more importance as well)...

so yeah... there was a tenuous connection at best. I'm an idiot.

What you have here is a "phyrric victory"... I mispoke and you proved me wrong- yet the war in Iraq which the parent seemingly supports (and uses the "link" to justify it) is a tragic, costly, utterly senseless war that is quickly draining the US monetarily, morally, and militarily.

congratulations. feel better?

Re:Only two dead so far...

[Jarnis]

I'm quite sure by the time they have cleaned up the mess underground, there will be more dead... the numbers always start low, because the emergency services are kinda too busy trying to help the living ones - body counts can wait until everyone still alive is cared for.

If a bomb of any real size blows up in an enclosed subway car during a rush hour... I can't see how there could be no deaths next to it. And if the count of 6 blasts in subways is true, that means the body count is definitely going to rise a lot. '2 dead' would mean that four of those blasts didn't kill anyone. With hundreds of wounded already in hospitals... And we know that one bomb was strong enough to blow off the whole roof of a london bus, so it was no firecracker...

Eyewitnesses claim many deaths

[Bonzor]

According to this CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/eyewitn ess.accounts/index.html/

Re:Eyewitnesses claim many deaths

[perly-king-69]

Some "hippy protest" then, you fucking ignoramus.

Was it organised terrorism?

[newandyh-r]

There seems to be a general assumption in the media that this is an Al Quaida coordinated attack. It could be. But the locations of the (four, not seven) blasts are such that small devices could easily have been planted by a lone idiot - use the Circle/District line and leave a bomb on a tube each way, then via Picadilly line to Holborn - douuble-back to Russell Sq leaving a bomb on that train. Then out onto a bus for one stop leaving another.
The bombs appear, from their effects, to have been small - probably ounces of commercial explosive or slightly more improvised. In any case easy enough for one person to carry.

Re:Was it organised terrorism?

[Axfish]

German newspaper Der Spiegel has a letter from what is apparently the "Secret Organisation Al-Qaeda in Europe" claiming responsibility for the terror attacks. The article can be found (in German) at this link.

People in the UK are used to it.

[caluml]

Mind you, it's not much of a difference from the days when terrorists would go to dinners at the White House, to fundraise, and use the hundreds of thousands of dollars given by misguided "Irish" Americans to buy guns and bombs to kill innocent UK civilians in pubs, bars, shops, and town centres.
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.

[alistair]

I'm in the UK (central London as I write this) and I have to say I'm not used to it. The IRA did try to blow stuff up but generally gave warnings, as they did when they tried to blow up Canary Whalf and the Natwest Tower (now Tower 42) (what is it with terrorists and tall buildings). They attacked military targets as they called them, although many of these were dubious in their military connections e.g. Hourseguards Parade. Northern Ireland was a different story but London never felt like it does today. This is not to excuse any of their actions, they killed 3,000 people, all of whom should be here today.

So I hope all the people of America today will stand with us as we did through 9/11. We have many differences as the discussions at the G8 will show but we must never get used to this feeling or democracy as we all practice it will have lost.

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[kahei]

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.

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[YrWrstNtmr]

Perhaps being 'used to it' isn't the best way to go about daily life?

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[caluml]

I find it really interesting that this went straight to +5 Insightful, but as Americans wake up, and can't take the truth, it gradually gets modded down.

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[GypC]

We're with you.

I expect to see a run on Union Jacks any minute now here in Texas. ;-)

But seriously, it hurts me to see this. You are our friends and a wonderful bunch of people who never fail to make us laugh, take ourselves less seriously, remind us that we're not always right, yet back us up when push comes to shove.

God Bless Great Britain and the people of London.

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[virve]

Mind you, it's not much of a difference from the days when terrorists would go to dinners at the White House, to fundraise, and use the hundreds of thousands of dollars given by misguided "Irish" Americans to buy guns and bombs to kill innocent UK civilians in pubs, bars, shops, and town centres.

Thank you. I agree.

September 11, 2001 was a first only for Americans in the US. The world didn't change that day. It had changed long before.

--
virve

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[thaig]

Others can feel bitter about the UK in the same way that you mention. I am from Zimbabwe and the help that some people in the UK gave to Mugabe's party in the past could have similar statements made of it.

The past is useful for helping us to understand the present but it cannot be altered by recriminations. If one hand of friendship is offered, I think that it's best to grab hold of it with two hands if the intention is good. Such positive feelings are scarce.

Regards,

Tim

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[Per Abrahamsen]

Are you really surprised that those people who actually live in the many countries where US historically have supported terrorists (IRA, the Nicaraguan contras, or the Afghan mujahedins (who 9/11 turned side against the people of the country who trained them), feel resentful?

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[perly-king-69]

Although not as funny, let's not forget: 30 years ago Nelson Mandela was a dangerous terrorist. Last night he gave a video message to the G8....

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[kevinbr]

If you want to use history as an example, then perhaps read some history. About 3000 people were killed in the conflict refered to as the "Troubles". Some were killed by the British Army. Some were killed by the SAS, some were killed by the IRA, some were killed by the UVF, some were killed by the NI Police, some were killed....

You get the idea.

The problem here and everywhere we try to constrain human injustice and suffering, cause and effect with simple factoids that are usually incorrect.

Todays press is great at vomiting facts about events, but devoid of context and meaning.

People die all the time. it is more significant to me that 18000 americans will die killed by a drubk this year and we sit by and belch and screech factoids and distort history.

Why worry wbout one death and not another? Why would these deaths in London be so more significant than 60 dead Afghan villlagers killed by a US explosive device?

Why? Because SKY and CNN tell us they are. They are dead westerners. Our deaths are inportant, poor and disposseded deaths are not.

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[Ren.Tamek]

Al-Qaede are funded partly by contributions and partly by the drug trade Yeah that's right, just like they're funded by video piracy. I can just see Osama in the middle of the desert with his poppy farm and his VCR, laughing at our western values. Imagine, all those Al-Qaeda 'militants' standing on street corners, convinced that fencing crack is doing God's work. Use your brains mate, the drugs trade is controlled by international organised gangs, who have the least to gain from a tightening of security in the west. We're their main source of income, after all. Pissing about funding terrorism is only going to attract attention and reduce their markets. Do yourself a favour and don't believe everything you see on TV.

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[Mecanico]

Which makes me wonder how much of the terrorist stuff going on today is really done by groups like IRA and Al Qaeda, and how much is just bad propaganda given to them by some political groups (Governments are powerful and can do some really freaky stuff to oposing groups).

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[NYTrojan]

You know what? Fuck you. Seriously. If you really believe that even 1% of Americans accept, condone, or approve of what the IRA is and does then fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Yes we have some nuts here who funded the IRA. We have some nuts who funded Bin Ladin too. We have citizens who helped them carry out the attack.


I know you're trying to be funny, but I resent the fact that you dare lump me in with those bastards (or in some cases fools) who's money went toward the deaths of innocent British civilians.

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[Locke2005]

Nelson Mandela never advocated the use of bombs against innocent civilians. 30 years ago a group of Iranian students thought it would be a neat idea to storm the American embassy and kidnap some Americans. Today, that act is almost universally held by Iranians to have been a mistake which harmed the Iranian people by making them enemies of the civilized world. Being associate with the kidnappers is now political suicide in Iran. Remember, these were people taking relatively humane actions against direct representatives of the government they had a beef with for supporting the Shah's regime. No, I don't think history will EVER regard the bombers as anything but misguided terrorists, and certainly not freedom fighters! Freedom fighters would have at least announced their objectives -- isn't that what Mandela was jailed for? Freedom fighters would attack directly the oppressors or occupying forces. What these cowards did could in no way be constued by any rational person as the acts of freedom fighters.

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[rsynnott]

If you're comparing him to the IRA, it's worth noting that he fought for the rights on the oppressed 90% of a country's population; the IRA fights for... erm, no-one's too sure any more. They once supposedly fought to protect the rights of the oppressed then-30% Catholic population; those people are no longer oppressed. They want Northern Ireland to be part of the Republic of Ireland. Depending on who you believe, anything from 25%-45% of NI WANTS to be part of the ROI. The ROI doesn't generally want NI too much.

If you're comparing him to the Islamic terrorists, that's a far more complex issue, and one that I'm not going to comment on 'cause I'll get shouted at.

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[perly-king-69]

...you've just argued my point nicely.

Re:Terrible.

[squidguy]

I may be terribly cynical, but the first thing I thought was: 1. This distracts the world from Karl's outing the CIA agent. 2. This prevents Blair from going waffely on Iraq despite Bush's lack of any compromise on global warming or aid to Africa. In any case, we should bomb Mecca every time something like this happens. Cynicism? Innocent people just died and all you can come up with is claptrap like this?

Re:Only two dead so far...

[hotdiggitydawg]

Let's see, blowing up the London underground in 6 places, during peak hour. Over a hundred injured.

Sound like a "hippy 'peaceful protest' attack" to you?

Re:Only two dead so far...

[spot35]

Apparently, there were twenty deaths on the bus.

Re:First Post

[MoonFog]

Yes they have: A previously unknown group calling itself "Secret Organisation al Qaeda in Europe" said it carried out the attacks as revenge for British "military massacres" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Source

The statements come from people in BBC, not FOX.

Re:Fucking Animals

[cassidyc]

Londoners are well aware of terrorist attacks, for a long while a lot of you yanks were funding this little organisation that called itself the IRA.

Chaos

[MrFujisawa-work]

I arrived at Fenchurch street station around 10mins after the first blast and getting to Tower Hill tube station found it clsed with noone knowing why. I decided to walk to work in Fleet Street and had loads of police and ambulance passing me, it wasnt until my dad called i found out there was reports of a explosion. Im now stuck in work, with all our shutters down just wishing i could go home but all train stations are closed!

Photo Links at flickr...

[jamp]

http://flickr.com/photos/qwghlm/24230239/

Quite disturbing...

Re:Fucking Animals

[kmichels]

A lesson for Londoners on Terrorism? Well excuse me, but haven't London and most of the UK been deeling with IRA attacks for many more years than people care to remember? Forgive us in the UK for reminding people that terrorism didn't originate with 911, despite what some people may think.

At least we're not likely to use this as an excuse to go bombing the crap out of some country to get control of its oil reserves under the pretence of securing democracy and freedom.

How long before people realise that its this entire arrogant western attitude which caused all this in the first place?

Chill out people: reacting the way the USA reacted to 911 is playing into their hands and doing exactly what they want you to do!

Re:Terrible.

[ScentCone]

I may be terribly cynical, but the first thing I thought was:

1. This distracts the world from Karl's outing the CIA agent.

If that's the first thing you though, then you're in pretty bad shape. Do you think "the world" gives a rat's ass about Valerie Plame's job at the CIA and which reporter(s) knew about it? It sure as hell isn't the sort of issue that makes it much past the US talking head circles in terms of real import.

Regardless, the first thing I thought was that the local terrorist cell(s) that did this learned a lot from their last attempt in Madrid, and got their timing better. Further, that they've joined philosophical sides with the people who think smashing out the windows at a Starbucks whenever there's a "global" summit in town will somehow make things better for poor people and for bored, anarchist-minded college students without a clue. And whatever people think about this event, where they're really going to feel it is in their wallet. The stock markets across the world just took a huge hit, and that portion of the economy that depends upon a smoothly operating London has ground to a halt. This will cost billions upon billions of dollars, and the people that think that not enough is being done for the poor should understand that a huge amount of resources just evaporated in several clouds of smoke, courtesy of Islamist fundamentalist wack jobs (note that an Al Queda cell is already claiming responsibility for this event).

Large article on Wikipedia

[gibbo2]

Wikipedia article up already, good work Wiki editors

Re:Only two dead so far...

[perly-king-69]

Hippy Peaceful Protest???....you utter fuckwit. So little casualties so far because they're still trying to rescue people/get bodies of those stuck underground. Having seen the picture of the bus that has been ripped apart and eyewitness reports of bodies being blown out of it onto the street, I'd guess say that there are some pretty pissed off hippies about. The only thing that's not right here is your brain.

Re:Fucking Animals

[N3WBI3]

And other than a military base in Saudi Arabia what exactly was the US doing before 9/11? No, with people like AQ if you step in the wrong place it warrents death.

Re:Only two dead so far...

[Bonzor]

Initial reports claimed only two deaths. Way to let the story develop more and then rip on me for statements I made with lesser knowledge genius boy.

Re:Very Sad

[stinerman]

Jokes after tragedy are in order on /.. The joke itself doesn't matter, but the intent of that joke. I'd say most here are simply trying to make a few people laugh in light of such serious events. In fact, many may be mourning in this way (not everyone wears black and gets depressed for a week).

So far, the mods have done a good job modding down anything over the top and kept the good humored jokes up.

Re:First Post

[grumbel]

Since when attack anti-globalist zivilians? They do a little fight with the police every once in a while, but thats a completly different thing then blowing up a bus.

Moblog photos and other internet resources

[ewg]

Some moblog photos from the time of the event.

http://moblog.co.uk/view.php?id=77571

http://moblog.co.uk/view.php?id=77554

And I'm wondering if germane photos will start showing up on Flickr soon. So far just shots of television screens reporting the news.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/london/

Nothing gruesome in these sources at the time of this post, but of course anything could be added later.

Google Maps focused on the area described in the news reports:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=london,+uk&ll=51.514 618,-0.120592&spn=0.035216,0.083822&hl=en

Re:Moblog photos and other internet resources

[koogydelbbog]

London Bomb Blasts / Pool:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/74918957@N00/pool/

From London

[oniony]

It's been chaos here this morning. I take the overground train to work and had to walk past a couple of tube (Undergound) stations this morning. Both were closed which was unusual, but not unheard of.

The news has slowly unfurled over the course of the morning. The first incident to the east of the centre was at 9:00. Up until 10:30, the news were still claiming the problems were caused by the power supply. When the first bus was reported this obviously started to break down but it was another 20 minutes or so before the news confirmed that he problems were down to terrorists. Additional spots have been appearing on the map over the course of the morning and it's at seven at the moment.

Outside the streets are very empty, both of cars and pedestrians. I think almost everyone who can has stayed in their offices. Many shops have closed up and gone home so there is an eery feeling walking about the streets.

I've not yet visited any of the incident sites and, from what I've heard, they've now been cordened off.

Getting home will be very difficult with the mass transport systems out of action. During previous strike action the streets get very busy and I fear for will happen if the terrorists have planned anything else when the streets are busy at rush hour this evening.

Re:From London

[Insipid Trunculance]

the problems were caused by the power supply.

It might be the new Inspector Sands which was used as a coded message to prevent panic.

Re:Fucking Animals

[aerique]

I didn't write the previous comment, but: Flamebait?

Have you moderators gone into patriot mode already? Morons..

(Flamebait this :-D )

Not just about Iraq

[philbert26]

It was bound to happen, sooner or later, unfortunately. The US & UK went to war on a country that had done nothing to them (Iraq), and created a fertile breeding ground for terrorists. The results are going to impact us for a long time, I fear.

You say that like there were no terrorist attacks before Iraq! What about Bali (punishment for Aussies helping the UN in East Timor)? What about 9/11 (punishment for not invading Iraq and taking the alternative of long-term sanctions)? What about the attack on the USS Cole (no retaliation for that IIRC, looks like the "violence begets violence" crowd forgot to congratulate the USA on that, and the terrorists forgot to take notice)? The French convicted several terrorists who planned to attack Strasbourg in 2000 -- and they didn't want anything to do with attacking Iraq. They'd even stopped enforcing the no fly zone and called for an end to sanctions on Iraq!

Canada is also on the Al-Qaeda hit list, and they opposed Iraq. Their crime was to help get rid of the Taliban. Elsewhere, Russia, Thailand, Phillipines, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon are just some of the countries facing Islamic terror right now. You'd have to be pretty naive to think all of those countries are being attacked over Iraq.

No doubt the terrorists will mention Iraq when they claim this attack. It is propaganda, and all the people who feel so clever because they don't believe Bush's "they hate our freedom" explanations should also be smart enough not to believe that jihad terror began with Iraq and is related only to that.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[syslog]

You seem to have bought the claptrap that Bush fed us - that 9/11 and Iraq were related. They were not, and your other points are cogent enough to suggest that you should already know that.

I agree that there were terrorist attacks before, but the problem I have is that the (completely uncalled for) war in Iraq has given extremists a made-to-order training camp.

Hope that makes my point clearer.

naeem

Re:Not just about Iraq

[philbert26]

I agree that there were terrorist attacks before, but the problem I have is that the (completely uncalled for) war in Iraq has given extremists a made-to-order training camp.

You are right that Iraq is providing training for terrorists. Your original post spoke of a "breeding ground" rather than a training camp. In my opinion the true breeding grounds are the places all over the world where the terrorists learn their ideological motivations for attacking the infidels. The terrorists may pick up battlefield experience in Iraq, but that is a separate issue.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[Anonymous Coward]

What about 9/11 (punishment for not invading Iraq and taking the alternative of long-term sanctions)?

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Bin Laden claims 9/11 was because he wanted US forces out of Saudi Arabia.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[dannyitc]

I think al-Qaeda's motivation is more about the Western World's pro-Israel, pro-Jewish at the expense of Islam (Palestine) stance in the last half century than anything we've ever done in Iraq.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[philbert26]

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Bin Laden claims 9/11 was because he wanted US forces out of Saudi Arabia.

Actually Bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war against America specifically mentioned Iraq:

More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanctions) imposed on Iraq and its nation.

The realistic alternative to not invading Iraq was the policy of containment, which meant US troops in Saudi Arabia and sanctions to keep Iraq from rebuilding its military machine. No American government, Republican or Democrat, was ever going to abandon the Middle East and return to isolationism, and I doubt that Europe (who get a large fraction of their oil from the region) would want that either.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[mog007]

You can't prevent any terrorist activies, and the terrorists can claim "this action" or "that action" is what fueled them to do what they did, but at the end of the day, it's inevitable. Bin Laden doesn't like non-Islamic peoples. That's just the way it is. If you don't follow his religion in precisely the way he does, then you're his enemy, and his interpretation of his religion's text justifies his actions to himself.

Don't get me wrong, I think Bush and Blair have caused more people to harbor animostity to the United States and the United Kingdom, but blaming them for terrorist action OUTSIDE of Iraq is foolish, because they're going to be inevitable anyway. We should just pick up the pieces, analyze them to trace the bombs to whoever made them, arrest the prick(s), and move on.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[Guppy06]

"What about the attack on the USS Cole"

I take issue with listing this as a "terrorist attack." The USS Cole is a US-flagged vessel of war, and if that's not a valid military target then I don't know what is.

It was a surprise attack, it was a suicide attack, but it was a perfectly legal and valid attack by just about any standard.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[hyfe]

(punishment for not invading Iraq and taking the alternative of long-term sanctions)?

Repeat a lie enough, and people will believe it :/
There is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq!*

*Not entirely true, AFAIK the posting of troops in Saudi-Arabia during first gulf war, and the subsequental refusal to leave was what Bin Laden claimed was his motivation.

Their crime was to help get rid of the Taliban

You make it sound like bombing a country back to the stone-age, and then leaving it to rot was a good thing?

You'd have to be pretty naive to think all of those countries are being attacked over Iraq.

Yes, but more and more some Muslims view this as a clash of cultures, and draw parallells back to the crusades. Agression on one front is going to hurt the others, as it rises the general tension.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[glesga_kiss]

Bin Laden doesn't like non-Islamic peoples. That's just the way it is.

No, you are wrong.

If you don't follow his religion in precisely the way he does, then you're his enemy

No, if you station troops in his home country to back up a brutal corrupt dictatorship that you helped nurture and sold most of their weapons, THEN you are his enemy. He has stated this in almost EVERY video message, you know, the ones the US government censor for you. You don't see Bin Laden attacking any other the other countries in the world that are mostly non-islamic. Just the USA, and thanks to us helping in invading Iraq, now here in the UK.

I think Bush and Blair have caused more people to harbor animostity to the United States and the United Kingdom, but blaming them for terrorist action OUTSIDE of Iraq is foolish

You CAN blame Bush Sr though. Go get a history book and stop getting your information from Fox news. They do not "hate freedom"; that's just propaganda to keep you from finding out why they really hate the USA. Because, if you were to find out, well, it might just cut into the profit margins. Lord forbid the US public actually putting aside the Brukheimer movies and learning about how your foreign policy really works. Here's a hint: no one saves the day and a lot of money is made in arm deals to asshats like Hussain.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[wild_berry]

the (completely uncalled for) war in Iraq has given extremists a made-to-order training camp
And also, the extremists behind the military-industrial complex in Western nations reasons to keep making and selling weaponry -- to both sides.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[ednopantz]

Except it was carried out by a transnational, non governmental group fighting without a fixed chain of command or in uniform, the standard for being a legitimate combatant under the Geneva Conventions.

These guys are more like pirates than legitmate combatants.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[philbert26]

I take issue with listing this as a "terrorist attack." The USS Cole is a US-flagged vessel of war, and if that's not a valid military target then I don't know what is.

This is an interesting point. Is it a terrorist attack because it was carried out in support of Al Qaeda? Or was it a legitimate military attack? If the latter, then the US was certainly within its rights to kill those responsible. Amnesty International complained that the USA should have arrested the suspects instead, so presumably they believe that terrorists retain the status of criminals even when they temporarily assume the role of lawful warriors.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[DesScorp]

The USS Cole is a US-flagged vessel of war, and if that's not a valid military target then I don't know what is.

That would be perfectly true....IF WE WERE AT WAR WITH SOMEBODY AT THE TIME.

...but it was a perfectly legal and valid attack by just about any standard.

Legal? Valid? What laws are you looking at???

We weren't at war with anyone. We were on a port of call, at the permission of the host goverment. International law, the laws of the Seas, you name it...we had every right to be where we were, doing what we were doing. Furthermore, we were attacked not by a country, but by a terrorist group bent on Islamic world goverment. What happened was a cowardly act of murder. It was in no way legal, and to call it valid raises serious questions about your own judgement.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[Mycroft_VIII]

While I find the attack on the Cole much less objectionable than the rest. I'm not shure about leagle. I don't recall that the attackers wore uniforms. I seem to recall this is somehow regarded as important (especially after all the talke about 'illeagle combatants).

The one time a thread of me-too would be apropriate and I can't find the one I'm looking for. So I will take this post as oportunity to express my sympathies to the people of london and the UK over what has happened.
I can't feel the tragedy as strongly as you can, nor even as strong as would someone from NewYork or Madrid, and I know this isn't your only dealings with such foul attacks on innocent civilians, but I nonetheless feel saddened hearing about this horrid attack and hope the pain is as little as possible for you all. I sincerly hope for your sakes it is not as bad at it sofar seems, and my condolences to all concerned.

Mycroft

Re:Not just about Iraq

[hb253]

Afghanistan was already in the stone age. The Taliban made sure of that.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[hyfe]

Womens rights, Democrazy, and other culture-relativistic stuff; most certainly.

Food, infrastructure and general living conditions. No.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[Guppy06]

"That would be perfectly true....IF WE WERE AT WAR WITH SOMEBODY AT THE TIME."

We weren't aware we were at war with Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor, either.

A formal declaration of war is a courtesy, not a requirement. Even the US Constitution allows states to wage a war without bothering with a Congressional declaration if it's "in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

"Furthermore, we were attacked not by a country, but by a terrorist group bent on Islamic world goverment."

No flag no warfare?

How does your requirement for a country fit into domestic conflicts? Does everything ever done by the Confederacy automatically become "terrorist" because nobody else recognized them as a country?

Re:Not just about Iraq

[Laser Lou]

So if someone in the Army is walking in a street, its ok to shoot him because he/she is a valid military target?

Re:Not just about Iraq

[Bimo_Dude]

Well said.

Lately, I have been increasingly (and pleasantly) surprised by the number of people here (in the US) that are finally taking it upon themselves to become more informed and by the number of people who have stopped believing everything that is spoonfed to them by the corporate media.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[term8or]

So if someone in the Army is walking in a street, its ok to shoot him because he/she is a valid military target?

No. If you are a member of a legitimate ARMY, in uniform, from a nation that is at war with the country the target is from and you are in a valid field of engagement (i.e. not a neutral country) and are obeying your countries rules of engagement in that field of operation then it is legitimate for you to shoot him/her unless he/she has already surrendered.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[LS]

What the hell are you talking about??? The fact that war is occuring implies that one side believes the other side is doing something outside the bounds of the law. War would never occur if both sides were being lawful. Your thought process implies that at least one side during a war is acting as terrorists, because someone always has to make that first initial attack, right? Was Pearl Harbor a terrorist act or an act of war? Was it legal and valid?? Calling ANYTHING legal and valid in War is just a bunch of bullshit. War is war - it's taking humanity to it's lowest level, and there are no rules in war. It's purely for propaganda that governments even talk about "law" during war.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[nickco3]

i dont remember being at war at that time?

So Pearl Harbor was a terrorist attack?

Re:Not just about Iraq

[1ucius]

Carrying out the attack *while pretending to be non-combatants* would also make it terrorism, regardless of a formal state of war.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[DrXym]

Except that description would cover all the US, South African & European mercenaries who will gladly fight in any war if you pay them. You don't hear them being called terrorists, although undoubtedly they are if you happen to be the tinpot government they're fighting to overthrow.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[Anonymous Meoward]

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:Not just about Iraq

[colinrichardday]

A side may "legally" make the first attack if it has already declared war on the other. The Japanese attempted to make such a declaration to the US before Pearl Harbor.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[Ubergrendle]

It was a surprise attack, it was a suicide attack, but it was a perfectly legal and valid attack by just about any standard.

So there was a declaration of war by another state?

Ethically it was a much more 'valid' target than, say, a schoolbus full of nuns or children, but its still a heinous act. And nowhere justified under any international law or treaty.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[purple_cobra]

As far as they're concerned they *are* fighting a legitimate war and, while people continue to die from the actions of these lunatics, the Geneva Convention's definition of 'legitimace combatants' is somewhat irrelevant.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[HungSoLow]

If he/she has just invaded my country, yes, absolutely.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[Guppy06]

Actually, he's got a point. You're still expected to wear a uniform and to carry your weapon openly.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[dannyitc]

Are you kidding? Have you read any history at all? In fact it was Britain who first divided Palestine and had several movements to relocate Jews to Israel. The UN voted to create the Israel/Palestine country division and it was the UN and all nations therein that collectively stared at their shoes as Israel violated their division by claiming supposedly neutral Jersualem as its capital and a host of other lands in the ensuing wars in the middle east.

As of today Israel's main supporter is the United States but it's ignorant to deny the fact that many European nations are just as responsible for the situation created in the middle east.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[colinrichardday]

The Japanese did try to declare war before Pearl Harbor.

Also, whether an action is terrorist or not depends on the action and not the political status of the actors. If Al Qaeda were to deploy troops in regular formation on the plains of Manassas (including wearing uniforms), and dig in waiting for the US Army to attack, it might be illegal, but not terrorist.

PS. Mexico (under Maximilian) and Spain recognized the Confederacy.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[colinrichardday]

As opposed to loons in the Oval Office who hear their own insanity as God's word.

What about violence waged by nonelected governments, does that count as legitimate?

Hmm. . . And who gets to decide what is legitimate? Oh, yeah, governments. Gee, and then they decide that nongovernmental use of force is illegitimate. What next, will Microsoft decide that Linux software is illegitimate?

Re:Not just about Iraq

[stanmann]

And why were US Forces in Saudi Arabia??


OH YEAH!!!

Iraqi agression toward Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[stanmann]

In an unconventional conflict a legitamate target covers a multitude of sins. For example had the attacks of 9/11 targetted ONLY the pentagon, white house and capitol buildings, anger and disgust would have resulted, but NOT outrage IMO.

Selecting and targetting military targets(whether "collateral" damage is taken into account or not) is what has become known as "civilized" warfare. Women, children and non-combatants die, but when they are NOT the primary target the attackers are taken MORE seriously.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[AnObfuscator]

So if someone in the Army is walking in a street, its ok to shoot him because he/she is a valid military target?

That's a terribly vague and misleading question. The answer is, "Sometimes." Let me break down two examples:
"If someone in the Army is walking in a street, off duty, out of uniform, in his hometown, is he a valid military target?"
and
"If someone in the Army is walking down a street, on patrol in a foriegn, occupied city, is he a valid military target?"

The USS Cole was part of what AQ claims is an "occuping force" in Saudi Arabia. US military assets in that region had conducted a number of actions against AQ assets, and AQ responded in a similar manner (in this particular instance). A TLAM gives you about as much warning as a suicide attack.

As a side note, I'm not an any way supporting the validity of AQ, of AQ's agenda, methods, or actions. I despise them utterly, but the truth is, attacking military targets isn't in the same league... hell, it isn't even the same *game* as attacking civilians. If it is, then Nelson Mandela must be given the same treatment as bin Laden or the leaders of Hamas.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[glesga_kiss]

I have been increasingly (and pleasantly) surprised by the number of people here (in the US) that are finally taking it upon themselves to become more informed

Well, unfortunately I'm not American, but I am trying to do my bit for the whole truth and justice thing, which is no longer the american way. Seems you need all the help you can get right now on that front!! ;-)

If I can get through to at least one person per day, then I can sleep soundly knowing at least I tried something!

Re:Not just about Iraq

[DrXym]

And if you're fighting a war of occupation as many Iraqis are right now, such a notion would be monumentally stupid. If that's the definition you could also lump in the French resistance and other underground groups as terrorists during WWII.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[Guppy06]

Ultimately it depends on whether or not you want to get shot at yourself. "OK to shoot" simply means you won't be found guilty of war crimes for targeting that soldier, but of course you'd also be "OK to shoot."

Re:Not just about Iraq

[ednopantz]

" war of occupation as many Iraqis are right now,"

Give me a break. The country has had a democratic election in the face of unbelievable terror carried out by people who regard the rightful winners of those elections as nothing more than heretics. The elections were boycotted by 20% of the population because they knew that their candidates would lose and lose badly.

If say, German Americans boycotted the 2006 congressional elections becuase "their" candidates stood to lose and started blowing up restaurants in Mexican neighborhoods no liberal would leap to their defence. What is different here?

To call the jihadis anything but terrorists is to deny their frequently stated agenda to prevent democracy in Iraq at all costs, ideally causing a destructive civil war in the process.

These people aren't the French resistance. Their goal is to undermine democracy, equality before the law, and impose, at best a form of religious fascism under an unelected Amir such as the illiterate(?) thug Mulla Umar. These people really think that an Amirate is the only acceptable form of governance.

It is amazing to see people who regard with horror an alliance between evangelical christianity and state power cheer on people who's stated agenda is a military theocracy.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[Abu Taleb]

What nonsense. As per UN Resolution 1546, US is the legitimate authority in Iraq. Iraq has NO sovereignty. Iraqi people had no sovereignty even at the time of Saddam - it was a dictatorship - what an idiot. Attacking a US soldier in the streets of Baghdad is like attacking a policeman in London. Now you go figure.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[Guppy06]

" And if you're fighting a war of occupation as many Iraqis are right now, such a notion would be monumentally stupid."

Whether or not it's stupid is a matter of opinion, but one of the main points of the Geneva Conventions is to protect civillians from being involved in a war. You're not allowed to deliberately target civillians, and you're also not allowed to goad the enemy into doing it by hiding among them. If it's not obvious to someone looking at you that you are a soldier, you are outside the purview of the Geneva Conventions, forsaking any benefits of humane treatment accorded to soldiers if you're captured alive.

It doesn't matter what your reasoning or how just you feel your cause is, you are not allowed to involve those who choose not to fight.

"If that's the definition you could also lump in the French resistance and other underground groups as terrorists during WWII."

Many of the resistance movements you mention did cary their weapons openly and did wear enough of a uniform to qualify as soldiers under the Genva Conventions. Usually it was a colored armband.

This is not an act of war...

[de Bois-Guilbert]

As horrendous as these acts are, this is not the time for broad, unrestrained retaliation. By responding to these attacks with invasion and occupation we reinforce the beliefs that this is a war, thereby justifying (in some minds) further "retalitory" strikes against what will undoubtedly be civilian targets. These people are criminals, not warriors or soldiers, and should be brought to justice as such. This path may well prove the most ardorous and trying, yet it is the *only* path if we wish to prove the superiority of our way and our societies.

Re:This is not an act of war...

[de Bois-Guilbert]

No, we should not. In fact, the terrorists can be strung up with piano wire for all I care. We should, however, be nice to the civilian population of the middle east since they are about as much to blame in this as you (for all I know) or me. Nobody said it would be easy being the good guys.

Re:This is not an act of war...

[de Bois-Guilbert]

I really shouldn't dignify this with a reply, but despite the atrocities in London, I am in a charitable mood. Our societies are suprerior in their openness, the freedom we have the luxury to take for granted, the relative tolarance with which we treat those unlike us(though this could indeed stand some further improvement...). And our soldiers are "superior" in that they *are* soldiers (largely) and (mostly) avoid directly targeting civilians. I am not, however, altogether happy with how our leadership has responded on these issues, but *their* attacks on democracy are another matter. For now, they're what we're stuck with.

Re:Time for Reconsideration

[t_allardyce]

Maybe its time for the terrorist groups to ask themselves whether they are doing the right thing by killing totally unrelated people who have nothing to do with Iraq.

Re:Terrible.

[Anonymous Coward]

I beg your BLOODY PARDON! are you an idiot???!!!

Bush & Blair are as much to blame for the deaths of poor innocents in their countries as the idiot terrorists.

The only people to blame for these deaths are the people that perpetrated these attacks.

I do not condone Iraq, and protested heavily against it, but this comment is downright STUPID.

Re:Terrible.

[SeekerDarksteel]

Thats right, cause if the US hadn't invaded Iraq Al Qaida would be all puppies and rainbows.

Gimme a break...

only 4 confirmed explosions so far.

[wapwam]

Charles Kennedy's address to the House of Commons states that only 4 explosions have been confirmed. The bus, Edgeware Road, between Russell Sq and Kings X and Aldgate

The military and police have blocked off Charing Cross Road at Cambridge Circus although there are reports it has recently (13:23) reopened.

Re:Time for Reconsideration

[bhima]

We already know they're not.

Oh... and your job is one of the best websites in Austria!

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[strider44]

You don't speak for me.

Re:Time for Reconsideration

[NewStarRising]

Some of us already did.

In fact, some of us questioned it before we started fighting. And marched on the Capital to make our feelings known.

Although USA is the major force in Iraq, there are plenty of nations with troops there.

Olympics 2012?

[scovetta]

Any thoughts on whether this might have been planned to coincide with London winning the Olympics 2012 bid yesterday?

Re:Olympics 2012?

[tinkerton]

Nah, Chirac may be a sore loser, but not that sore. He'll probably think the british are already being punished enough by having to eat british food.

Re:Olympics 2012?

[Lurker McLurker]

No, I really don't think they planned and executed this attack in under 24 hours.

Re:Fucking Animals

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, maybe it's me, but haven't these guys been doing this since loooong before the "War on Terror"?

I look at it this way, I have no problem with those who want to disagree with me, and I'm even willing to work with those who dislike me, but I have no proclivity to negotiate or understand anyone who wants to kill me.

And for those who want to say that other countries started the terrorists up, just remember that nobody did anything to provoke fundamental islamics that forced them to blow up buddhist religious artifacts.

Then again, we need to realize this: Anything with the word "fundamental" in it is a nice way of saying "completely nuts".

Fundamental muslim = nut Fundamental christian = nut with a different religion working towards a similar goal

But that's just me

Terrorist?

[NYhXc]

Fuck terrorism!!! And all because idiot Bush attacked Iraq in the first place!

Re:Terrorist?

[Welpa]

I blame it on the Greatest American of all time, Ronny Reagan, who funded radical islam in Afghanistan (to bleed the Russians) and instructed CIA to train them in combat and explosives. One of the great beneficiaries of the US back then was a young guy called bin Laden.

Unfortunately, we (Europeans) reap what you (Americans) sow.

Re:Terrorist?

[tweek]

War is not inherently about racism.

People die in war. It doesn't care what race they are. It just usually happens that one race attacks another race along international boundries.

Was WW2 racism? Was Korea only about "Northern Gooks"?

Your argument doesn't hold.

Are there people that love to see those "sand niggers" (your words) killed? probably. Hell some of them are in my family but I'm not one of them.

Ask yourself why Al Quaeda is killing innocent Iraqis as well as Americans. It's not racial me thinks.

How strange

[chrisnewbie]

The thing i find strange is that on the news this morning they reported that the first explosion were in the subway.
So shuttles buses were put in place to handle the people but the bus was rigged too.
That's one longshot.

Re:How strange

[Lord Bitman]

Al-Queda Terrorists have hijacked a train and are planning to crash it into the white-house!

(it's not a "troll" it's a "bad joke")

Re:How strange

[Hamstij]

You might want to check your facts before posting.

The bus that was blown up was not one of the shuttle buses. It was a tourist bus.

Your conspiracy is nothing but hot air.

Re:How strange

[chrisnewbie]

That's not what the channel news reported this morning but not every news channel have the same information at the same time.

You might want to understand that.

Re:How strange

[CmdrGravy]

No, it was the number 30 from Hackney.

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[N3WBI3]

you're joking right?

Re:Fucking Animals

[grumbel]

### This is why the War on Terror is so important and must be fought now.

The 'War on Terror' and what happened before it, is what has caused this thing in the first place.

Re:First Post

[Lionel B]

That used to be the first assumption anytime anything when bang in England.

Hmm... it used to be the assumption in Spain that any terrorist attack would be down to the Basque separatist group ETA. The Aznar government jumped to that conclusion in the immediate aftermath of the Madrid blasts - that mistake got them summarily voted out of office.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[SimianOverlord]

Oh? Then perhaps you could name one terrorist incident in the last 20 years committed by an Iraqi trained terrorist?

Re:Only two dead so far...

[Insipid Trunculance]

Four seperate explosions, yet so little casualties

You effing C*nt , one is one too many for their loved ones.Follow the news , they are STILL CONTINUING the rescue operations at Kings Cross and Edgware Road, which means they are still looking ion the tunnels and BBC are saying police are confirming that there are significant fatalities.

Re:First Post

[Lurker McLurker]

"Extreme anti-globalisation people" couldn't pull this off. You need to be a rich capitalist like Osama Bin Laden to have access to the necessary resources. Preferably, you should also (like Bin Laden) have the backing of a Western power, or have had it in the past.

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.

Re:What exactly does this has to do on Slashdot?

[fr0dicus]

It's news for more than just nerds. Would you suggest Slashdot simply ignore it? It has implications including but far beyond the remit of nerds.

Re:Time for Reconsideration

[nagora]

Maybe its time for the terrorist groups to ask themselves whether they are doing the right thing by killing totally unrelated people who have nothing to do with Iraq.

Well, that just puts them on the same footing as our governments who are killing people in Iraq that had nothing to do with Saddam (Saddam comes to you courtesy of the CIA's tyrant placement scheme), and torturing people that have done nothing more evil than having stood beside the wrong person when the US troops swept through their town.

Maybe Wolfowitz's "economic security" (ie, oil supplies) are more trouble than they're worth?

TWW

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[N3WBI3]

Hs there been conformation these guys were trained in Iraq?

Interesting analysis

[Morosoph]

I expect that the British Government will take the opportunity to soon move forward with liberty-restraining legislation.

What bugs me is that the G8 might have actually talked about African aid, farm subsidies, and global warming. At least that was the agenda by Blair. Now, well the terrorists are playing right into the hands of George Bush!

The plus side (in so far as there is one) is that other countries will want to show solidarity with the Brits. This could well help the British agenda, which is a good one, for a change.

Re: Interesting analysis

[Black Parrot]

> The plus side (in so far as there is one) is that other countries will want to show solidarity with the Brits. This could well help the British agenda, which is a good one, for a change.

If they don't screw up. On 9/12 the USA probably had more international solidarity than at any time since 1945, if not earlier, but within a couple of years had thrown all that away, and more, leaving us with probably the worst stench in the international community that we've ever had.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Peeteriz]

The more desparate you make the people in Iraq, the more recruits are easily available for terrorist groups.

Simply 'pressing more' doesn't achieve your goals of safety, it works against it.

The only pressure that would 'kill them at the source' would be a full-scale genocide, killing everybody of a threatening (ethnical, religious, etc) group, their relatives, the relatives of relatives, their friends, relatives of their friends....

But that's not a 'good' action from anybody's viewpoint, and even that will not be enough to stop all potential terrorists.

Re:Time for Reconsideration

[ArsSineArtificio]

Maybe it's time for you US/UK folks to ask yourselves again whether you're really doing the right thing in Iraq/Afghanistan...

Well, you're halfway there. In fact, the bombers' purpose was to force Londoners to ask themselves again whether they were really doing the right thing in refusing to accept Mohammed as the Prophet of God. Perhaps you'll get the clue next time.

Count has to be higher

[alistair]

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.

Re:Count has to be higher

[irokie]

in the last 10 minutes, reports have come in of more than 50 deaths

Re:Count has to be higher

[ds_job]

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.

Re:Count has to be higher

[kaleco]

The BBC can only report the number of confirmed deaths, to avoid sensationalism. I also watched Charles Clarke's speech to the house of commons in which he reported four bombs. That was all that had been confirmed at that time.

The Six O'Clock News will have a more comprehensive report of events, as the dust settles and more information is confirmed.

Re:Count has to be higher

[akadruid]

I agree. I heard an Italian news station has the number at 50 so far, that seems unfortunately much closer.

I'm writing from Mansell Street, 200 yards from Aldgate station and I've seen a lot of the chaos from here. The police have just reopened our street but about 9.30am all you could see across Aldgate was rows upon rows of ambulances loading casualties. Even now the sirens have not stopped, I suspect they may not have found the last of the casualities yet. At Kings Cross they are still trying to get to people in the tunnels.

My prayers go with all the families of the victims.

Re:Count has to be higher

[BarryNorton]

The bus in Russel Square was a double decker, packed with people leaving the tube and it was completely destroyed

No it wasn't - the BBC were showing pictures from behind before lunch, and were allowed closer soon after. The roof was blown off and the handrails bent out (which I'm told you can bend by hand), but the seats were in place and the whole bottom deck intact.

Re:Count has to be higher

[ds_job]

O negative is the most useful in cases like this. You can just pump it in and be reasonably sure there will be no reaction. If you had time, then cross typing helps to give the correct blood including the lesser known factors.

Re:Count has to be higher

[alistair]

Here is an image from the BBC's web site. As you can see the entire top deck has been completely destroyed and much of the back of the bus. I hope it isn't as bad as it looks but an explosion that would completely blow the top off a double decker has to do major damage to the people on board.

Re:Count has to be higher

[BarryNorton]

As you can see the entire top deck has been completely destroyed

I can't see that - I can see that the roof has been blown off, but that the seats are still in place - you're still exaggerating.

I'd not want to have been on that bus, but things are bad enough without hyperbole...

Re:Count has to be higher

[PhraudulentOne]

Here
are more updates.

As of 1345 Royal London Hospital dealt with 208 casualties, 26 of which had been admitted. At the moment 13 are being operated on and three are in intensive care.

Re:Count has to be higher

[BarryNorton]

Remember back in the late 90's, when an IRA bomb that was being transported on a bus accidently detonated? It did more damage to the bus than that, and even then people walked away from it.

True, here's an image of that - in fact, even that only killed three people. I believe two died on the bus yesterday. Tragic and horrible, but I'd speculate that the primary objective was to disrupt, not to kill...

Re:Time for Reconsideration

[perly-king-69]

We had a million people on the streets of London protesting against the war. They just don't listen to us.

Re:Terrible.

[jedidiah]

Yeah, it also includes righteous indignation for us daring to bail out Kuwait.

Re:Terrible.

[blane.bramble]

The British had this one coming, and the UK deserves this and more, for their involvement in the illegal war in Iraq.

I sincerely hope you never have to worry about your family in an attack like this. However, attitudes like yours make me sick. I hope you grow up one day.

Simlarities with Omagh [IRA]

[m_member]

In Omagh the Real IRA engineered the sitution to move people into the path of an explosion killing nearly 30 people. This is similar in nature as the bus explosions happened after the tube stations were closed forcing many more people onto buses.

Ok most 'analysts' are saying it'll be an Al Qaeda linked group but we shouldn't forget that our British cities have been blown up by much closer enemies for many years.

Re:First Post

[JanKeesJansma]

A so far unknown group, who claim to be connected to Al Qaeda, has claimed the bombings.

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[vandan]

Like it or not, Blair and Bush had a hell of a lot to do with this attack. With the number of innocent people they've killed, how can anyone be surprised that a handful of survivors got together to get some payback?

The US and UK know about payback, right? Remember Iraq, and how they were paid back for what a group of Afghanis did?

Re:Terrible.

[SnapShot]

I should have used a smiley face...

Mr Bush politics

[Tomasset]

This explosion and the tragic deads and casualties just shows how dangerous are the arguments of Mr. Bush and his camarilla. Was not the war vs terror supposed to create a safer world? Were we not defeating all the terrorists where they were hiding? Were not we winning?

Of course not. Such "wars" cannot ever be won. The extremists in both sides will always continue to have reasons for this horror. And always strike back on their terms.

The sad thing is that it is always innocent civilians (in London, Irak, Afganistan and young americans) those who die.

Sad day, (as sad as when a bomb goes off in Irak, but then it gets much less media coverage)...

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[syslog]

They don't have to be. Iraq is the rallying call for terrorists everywhere - a made-to-order rationale, generously delivered to them by our fearless leaders, Bush & Blair.

Mindless violence begets mindless violence - and the only people who really suffer are the innocents, be they Iraqis, American, British or anyone else.

naeem

C.D. Thomson

[VC]

I missed the kingscross one by 15 mins. As i left kings cross they were making announcments that if there was a "C.D.Thomson" on the platform could they make them selves known to staff. Might have been a bag left on the platform or train, or it might have been a coded message to staff. This was at 8:32 on the metropoliton line platform.

Re:Terrible.

[Filip22012005]

The British did not have this coming. Even if you are from a country where vengeance is normal (eye for an eye, etc), the random British commuter did not have this coming.

A Note of Solidarity

[tjstork]

I saw 9/11 on a giant screen. I was working next to a trade floor at
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.

Re:A Note of Solidarity

[tjgrant]

I'm a dual citizen UK/US. Lived in the States since I was a little boy. This has affected me more profoundly than I thought possible

Thank you for this post.

Here are Russel Square

[schnogg]

Here at Russel square things are amazing. Once the initial major evacuation was done, the streets were completely full of people. I'm not really sure why someone has wilfully shut down the mass transit system in London, but it was very effective. There is no way in or out at this point, except by foot.

Thank You for Posting This Story

[Evil W1zard]

Any terrorist attack on any soil is a tragedy. The meaningless death of innocent people is a horrible and cowardly act. I really appreciate everyone posting news here and other useful information. I am not British, but that does not lessen the sorrow I feel for those who will have lost friends and family because of this act.

On a side note. In my opinion this is not the appropriate time to start a post flamewar about how Western society has done this or that. Any civilized person should be able to look at this kind of act and know that it is wrong to have happened. This will probably be flamebait, but I really hope people consider that there are a lot of worried people out there right now that are looking to places like this for information because friends and family may be in harms way. Having to sort through posts that say You Deserve This because blah blah blah is inappropriate and cold-hearted.

Re:Thank You for Posting This Story

[Evil W1zard]

Sigh empathy = flamebait. Oh well.

Re:Thank You for Posting This Story

[rbarreira]

I don't think that anyone says things like "you deserve this". What people really mean, and I believe they're right, is that US and UK governments, among others, have a very big part of responsibility for what happened today. It's not a matter of "deserving", it's a matter of "provoking".

Furthermore, it isn't cold hearted to say this. What's cold hearted is waging wars to satisfy a closed group of individuals who very likely will never be harmed by them, they will just keep profiting from it. Meanwhile, innocents die, be it on the wars or on our cities, as happened today.

Now go mod me as flamebait, I dare you...

Re:Thank You for Posting This Story

[Evil W1zard]

Unfortunately I agree that keeping poor people poor through embargos and what not does not help to solve the problem of fanaticism/extremism. In fact denying economic aid to a country because of their leaders decisions just aids that leader in spreading hate and discord for us. But on the other hand society and religion has grown. If you look back at the Dark Ages one can say western religion was horribly cruel. But over time as people came to realize that cutting off hands and burning people at the stake was not acceptable, religions in general changed ways to mirror a more civilized society. Now in today's world where many countries have put in place rules that say harming man, woman or child in this manner is unacceptable other countries do not follow that path and still engage in acts like allowing the murder of women for crimes such as adultery or marrying out of their class or cutting off hands for theft or stoning for etc... I don't think it is wrong to try to change that mindset but I also don't think there is any way to do that in the near future other than helping to provide a more worldly education and to better the lives of those economically that suffer and feel Western nations are the cause of that suffering. It is just a sad situation and I think one that will be going on for quite awhile. Western society's do bad things like any other nation, but there is also a lot of good that comes out of us as well.

Re:Thank You for Posting This Story

[Locke2005]

Exactly. If you feel you are being oppressed by somebody, then attack the oppressors directly. Do not attack at random innocent people who may or may not sympathize with your cause. That is the reaction of a madman!

The history of western intervention in other countries is full of examples of the principle of unintended consequences, but none of it justifies the random killing of innocent people. And these terrorists are not "Muslim" extremists; anybody who had earnestly studied their Koran would know better than to support the killing of innocent women and children.

G8 Anarchists?

[nagora]

It seems to me more likely, at this point, that a group of anti-G8 people are responsible than some super-duper terrorist group:

• Small, weak bombs. So small that on a crowded bus or tube train only a couple of people are killed. Compare to Madrid.
• Day G8 starts in Gleneagles. A serious group would surely have stuck at Gleneagles with a suicide bomb. Much more impact on Bush etc.
• G8 protesters have on a number of occasions said that their aim is to make the G8 conference "too expensive" to hold. This seems to me the sort of thing they might mean; how many countries will now wonder about the sense of allowing a G8 conference in one of their cities now?

London has had much worse attacks than this in my life time; it's a blip unless we make it more than it is.

TWW

Re:G8 Anarchists?

[iapetus]

I have to disagree with you on this one.

Firstly, the number of reported deaths is a lot lower than the true figure - eyewitness reports (and seeing the aftermath) make it look unlikely that anyone on the top deck of that bus survived, and there are certainly more deaths to be counted from the underground attacks.

Secondly, this is a perfect target for a 'serious group' - a major capital with limited security as forces are diverted to Gleneagles.

Re:G8 Anarchists?

[nagora]

Firstly, the number of reported deaths is a lot lower than the true figure - eyewitness reports (and seeing the aftermath) make it look unlikely that anyone on the top deck of that bus survived, and there are certainly more deaths to be counted from the underground attacks.

Probably, although given that the first underground incident was a full hour before the bus, I'd have expected fatalities to have been mentioned earlier if there were some. Eyewitnesses from that had been very clear that no one was killed or even seriously injured.

But the number of explosions seems to indicate a careful plan. But what does that prove? I just think that we need to be careful about following the government's knee-jerk reaction that it must be "al-Qaeda" (and that's an term the CIA/FBI invented too).

TWW

Re:G8 Anarchists?

[iapetus]

I thoroughly agree that we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions about who's responsible, though I thought the government's statements had been pretty good on that front. As for the number of deaths, the less the better obviously, but I can't help remembering how slowly we got a realistic count on 9/11.

Re:G8 Anarchists?

[nagora]

I thought the government's statements had been pretty good on that front

The "AQ" word has been bandied about in a few press briefings, it seems, rather than by our glorious leader himself.

As for the number of deaths, the less the better obviously, but I can't help remembering how slowly we got a realistic count on 9/11.

That's true, but oddly in the other direction: started high and went low. I'm still amazed at how few people were killed in 9/11; I remember looking at the pictures through the window of a bar and thinking that there were something like 50000 people in each tower. To "get away" with less than 3000 deaths was astounding, really.

TWW

Re:G8 Anarchists?

[ShootThemLater]

I disagree also with the G8 anarchists theory, and given that Tonly Blair has referenced Islamists in his last speech after he's had a detailed briefing, I think there would probably be evidence to point to islamists that he has been made aware of.

I heard an interview with a doctor on the radio earlier, and he stated 10 fatalities at the scene for the bus bombing - this dopcutor was one of those on the scene. The bus actually exploded next to the offices of the British Medical Association, so medical care was actually quite close at hand for them.

I find it odd that the authorities have released NO figures for fatalities on the bus at this stage, given that they have given numbers for the far less accessible underground lines.

Also, it is strange that only a single bus was attacked. One theory is that a device was simply being transported on the bus, but this is only a theory and it has its share of holes.

Re:G8 Anarchists?

[nagora]

I disagree also with the G8 anarchists theory,

Yeah, I think it's pretty well a non-starter now too.

given that Tonly Blair has referenced Islamists in his last speech after he's had a detailed briefing, I think there would probably be evidence to point to islamists that he has been made aware of.

Well, other than anti-G8, who else is there apart from the Islamic fringe? The IRA has been quiet for a long time and I don't think they'd be up for trouble at the moment. But a splinter group is a possibility, I suppose.

Also, it is strange that only a single bus was attacked.

Looks like two, now.

Whatever, as usual us sheep will just have to mill around and see what advantage our political masters can find for their own careers in all of this. Bush is already harping on about how it proves that his silly War on Terror(TM) is vital and not, as it might appear, the main cause of this sort of thing.

At least Paul Wolfowitz has got his Iraqi oil, and I guess that's all that matters.

More blood, vicar?

TWW

Re:Terrible.

[goneutt]

Since there is no clear cut economic center to the muslim world Mecca makes a similar target to what they target. But your right, it's full of travelers for one month out of the year. Unlike New York or London which have huge numbers of travelers at all times.

Perhaps what we need is to encourage muslim economic interest into a few large cities and randomly bomb them, blame it on christian fundamentalist that don't really reflect the general concensus.

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[CdBee]

Sense at last

And to the grandparent poster - it seems from first reports that these weren't suicide attacks. As in Madrid, the bombers planted their explosives and left.

Excellent Wikipedia page on the Bombs

[jonathan_ingram]

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.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand your angry, but no, this is not the best method: you only makes them grow, actually.

And about the rights they deserve, I remind you that BEFORE one person can feely spech and defend in court, you even don't know if he is a terrorist.

Here in the Basque Country we know something about terrorism, believe me. Don't let the rage to blind you.

Re:Terrible.

[geoffrobinson]

I think you missed the point there. I hope it wasn't meant literally but he does have a point.

Weakness had emboldened and strengthened terrorists. Pulling out of Beirut and Mogidishu has done so much more to fuel the growth of terrorism than any foreign policy.

I could get into this much more about the terrorist mindset, but this will suffice for now.

Mecca is a different kind of capital.

Re:Very Sad

[imogthe]

Here we go again. Every time something along these lines happen, someone will make a funny/ironic/sarcastic/"no omg-wtf-god-help-us-all" comment, and in response someone who thinks the world is coming to an end will reply just like the parent.

Yes, people got killed. Yes, there's chaos. Yes, there will be grief. Yes, it's a tragedy for anyone involved.

HOWEVER: People die all over the world, all the time. Either due to accidents or deliberate actions by others. For most people, these things happen "far away" it doesn't affect them directly and they will therefore have less of an emotional impact.

And there we stand, Mr. Coward. I'm sure you don't break down and cry every time something bad happens somewhere in the world. It's useless trying to force people to feel sorry or to grieve, just as it's impossible to force someone to stop grieving.

These are decisions we'll have to make for ourselves. We are all creatures of concience.

Would have happened anyway

[fuzzybunny]

I'm no fan of the Iraq war (I would have been in favor of it if it hadn't happened under such false dishonest pretenses) but the posts spewing crap about "that's what you get for..." are vitriolic and ignorant.

Sept. 11 happened without Iraq, the Morocco bombings happened without Iraq (Morocco? Arab/muslim country? Hello?), the Turkish synagogue bombing happened without Iraq, the Paris bombings happaned without Iraq, and many others did as well. Get over yourselves.

My sympathy for the poor bastards who were killed or hurt in London.

Re:Would have happened anyway

[syylk]

Sept. 11 happened without Iraq, the Morocco bombings happened without Iraq (Morocco? Arab/muslim country? Hello?), the Turkish synagogue bombing happened without Iraq, the Paris bombings happaned without Iraq, and many others did as well.

So, these things happened before and after the "war on terror". Then, where exactly was the benefit of going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq? Terror attacks didn't get better nor worse, according to you. The "mission accomplished", in fact, accomplished nothing, toward world security. So why exactly we "freed" Iraq? Ah, please, no crap about solidarity with the poor iraqi people or exporting democracy or WMD or any other lame excuse.

Re:Would have happened anyway

[fuzzybunny]

So, these things happened before and after the "war on terror".
You're frothing at the mouth. Here, have a napkin.

Invading Afghanistan was a good thing, because it got rid of a bunch of murderous primitive fuckwits, regardless of whose fault it is that they were in power in the first place.

Invading Iraq would have been a good thing, if it had been done right, without lying about the reasons for it, because it got rid of a bunch of murderous primitive fuckwits, regardless of whose fault it is that they were in power in the first place.

"Getting rid of primitive, murderous fuckwits" is always a Good Thing (tm); it's just too bad nobody had the balls to do it in places like Rwanda and Liberia.

Yes, the "war on terror" is stupid. Yes, "mission accomplished" was stupid. Don't put words in peoples' mouths, and think before you post.

Re:Would have happened anyway

[hyfe]

the Morocco bombings [cbsnews.com] happened without Iraq (Morocco? Arab/muslim country? Hello?),

Morocco is oocupying large parts of Western Sahara. The people living there are muslims.

Re:Would have happened anyway

[ehiris]

You are so right, none of the other attacks happened with Iraq. Now the extremists they have millions of extra supporters from Iraq who are highly motivated to blow things up.

Re:Would have happened anyway

[syylk]

Invading Afghanistan was a good thing, because it got rid of a bunch of murderous primitive fuckwits, regardless of whose fault it is that they were in power in the first place.

Invading Iraq would have been a good thing, if it had been done right, without lying about the reasons for it, because it got rid of a bunch of murderous primitive fuckwits, regardless of whose fault it is that they were in power in the first place.

These are your words, stated as they are hard facts. Ok, I disagree. In my opinion, after the attack of today, the "because it got rid of a bunch of murderous primitive fuckwits" is a good intent AND a failed result. And an illusion. You put in jail one (Saddam), and ten more spring out of nowhere. Where is Osama, by the way? Is he eligible of "murderous primitive fuckwit" label? We got rid of him? We got rid of the wrong bunch? The bunch we got rid of was too small? We should nuke everything between Israel and India?

"Getting rid of primitive, murderous fuckwits" is always a Good Thing (tm)

I concur. But if the events of today (like 3/11 in Spain) tell us something is that we did NOT get rid of that whole bunch of murderous primitive fuckwits as the world sheriffs would like us to think after their muscle flexing. Newsflash: they're alive and kicking, it seems. They just moved, dodged the bombs, and retaliated; and wasn't even hard to foresee. And learnt to be even more cautious and covert than before, if they ever needed that.

Expecting all-out war action without all-out terrorism reaction is either monumental idiocy on behalf of our governors (I doubt) or done intentionally to push some agenda (I have doubts on this too, but everyday less).

I just know we're next (Italy) in the list. And this gives me a slight unease feeling.

Re:Would have happened anyway

[kevinbr]

"...Invading Afghanistan was a good thing, because it got rid of a bunch of murderous primitive fuckwits...."

Hmmm. I think you are mistaken here. We paid cash to one set of fuckwits to overpweor another set of fuckwits, but the average Afghan has no love of our support of War Lords.

The reality is we have never fought a real war or actually tried to make any real changes in Aghanistan.

We just swopped one set for another and business as usual. The one good thing is that it pleases you and makes you happy, but then you never had to live or visit Afghanistan so why would this "myth" displease you.

Re:Would have happened anyway

[Tom]

"Getting rid of primitive, murderous fuckwits" is always a Good Thing (tm); it's just too bad nobody had the balls to do it in places like Rwanda and Liberia.

Or Washington, DC.

Re:Only two dead so far...

[PatrickThomson]

And we know that one bomb was strong enough to blow off the whole roof of a london bus, so it was no firecracker...

Have you SEEN a london bus recently? It was probably someone having a really big sneeze.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[sp3tt]

Arab terrorists hate the US. That's fact.
The US invades a country in the arab world. Also fact.
Arab terrorists get pissed off, quite understandably. The US has simply given the terrorists another cause to hate the US.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[Toby_Tyke]

The US & UK went to war on a country that had done nothing to them (Iraq), and created a fertile breeding ground for terrorists

So, just out of curiosity, why did 9-11 happen? No one had been invaded by the US in 2001, so what was that all about?

Not time to reconsider

[nuggz]

You don't reconsider because of terrorism.
If all it takes is a few bombs to get what you want people will do it all the time.

You shouldn't drastically alter behaviour after a terrorist act, it will just encourage more.

That being said, it is ALWAYS time to review and reconsider all actions. The important thing is to make a decision and stand behind it, don't be wishy-washy, don't change because of terrorism, but do be willing to change if you were wrong.

As for actions.
I think it was wrong to invade Iraq.
It may have been wrong to invade afghanistan.

Now that those governments have been overthrown, the countries that invaded have a responsibility to provide some security until their own government can take over.

To overthrow a government, then leave the country in ruins is not acceptable.

Re:First Post

[MoonFog]

Claiming responsibility and actually being the ones behind are not necessarily the same thing, and I never said it was reliable information. I know that, I was just linking to the news talking about this group having claimed responsibility. It's not even certain that the group exists, which is also mentioned in most of the articles.

Re:Fucking Animals

[segfault_0]

Its against my best judgement to chime in on such a thread but there really is a difference between targeting your enemy and targeting his family, friends and loved ones. If you reduce it to a fist fight analogy, someone punched a guy in the eye and he came back and punched that guys sister in the eye. We do have to keep in mind that the perpetrators of such attacks are also victims of their own propaganda. Perhaps some governments make questionable decisions about where to put troops and about giving orders but on the whole i dont believe that the average "coalition" military personal in Iraq are out to hurt innocents. I say compare apples to apples and dont justify cowardice.

Flickr Pool

[swerdloff]

In the wake of this morning's tragedy in London, someone on Flickr already set up a photo pool. So far, it appears that the photos are generally just screen grabs of the TV news, perhaps those who were there, and those who operate security cameras in the stations could post their photos from before the attacks, and try to identify the perpetrators. A warning - the pictures don't appear graphic as yet, but as the day progresses, I expect that they will get to be so.

(Cross posted at Mindjack and Swerdloff (dot com).

What does this have to do with politics?

[Pampusik]

Why is this posted under "politics?"

I mean, c'mon... even politics has a hint of civility to it.

There was no civility in this.

Re:What does this have to do with politics?

[rbarreira]

Well, since you didn't put in the irony tag, I'll reply - Where would it be more appropriate to post it? terrorism.slashdot.org doesn't exist...

Re:What does this have to do with politics?

[andrewagill]

Well, since you didn't put in the irony tag, I'll reply - Where would it be more appropriate to post it? terrorism.slashdot.org doesn't exist...

No, you're right. Politics may be the best place to put it, but it bears repeating that this has nothing to do with politics. This is not politics.

Re:What does this have to do with politics?

[nytes]

Because terrorism is a political strategy, intended to effect changes in policy.

Re:Fucking Animals

[mark]

what exactly was the US doing before 9/11????

jesus fucking christ. read a book for fuck's sake. no wonder the world's fucked, with idiots like you running around hoisting the flag of the good ol' US of A whilst simultaneously invading the same countries whose inhabitants you've starved for the last ten years.

Peculiar...

[4v4l0n42]

Isn't it a bit strange that these events oftne take place during either a G8 summit or some other important discussion among the heads of the countries?

And I am not simply referring to what is the political meaning of these disgraceful attacks, but also they distract us from the big picture.

The journalists are already doing their job of creating that filter of fear among the people making up numbers of uncertain deaths, trying to make the whole event look even worse than it already is.

I hope this terrible act of non-civilization will not take our attention away from what the content of the G8 summit will be.

I remember last year in Genova, people were much more interested in discussing the violence on the streets and the police behavior that nobody knew what actually was said during the G8 itself.

I suggest everyone to use a reliable source of information, such as wikipedia, as it was done in the above article.

A reminder from your friendly Slashdot authorities

[MynockGuano]

Please, Do Not Feed the Trolls.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[eyeye]

Al Qaida existed before the invasion of Iraq.

nope, al qaeda was a term made up by the west. Thats why everytime you hear of "al qaeda" its some shit like "a group linked with al-qaeda" because thats the best they can say.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[StarTux]

Need to also understand one thing, these terrorists aren't fighting because of Iraq (more in spite of) and its not the first time London has been a battleground for Middle Eastern issues. Although I remember the last timewhen those hostages had been held the terrorists ended up rather worse off...

Please stop trying to win in on coolness factor by bringing in Iraq and saying it was the present leaderships fault

I am of the opinion that if we hadn't invaded Iraq (and I don't necessarily agree with it) terrorist activity would have continued, maybe even with more ferocity. They hate us for the way we treat our women, the way we have such an open society! One of my Muslim friends also told me that the Muslim religion is basically in it Middle Ages...

StarTux

Still convinced?

[syylk]

Dear brit friends, please accept my deepest sympathy.

But at the same time, are you still convinced that being GWB's lapdogs and "exporting democracy" and "war on terror" are the way to go? You just re-elected TB and confirmed your appreciation for his foreign politics. After Spain railroad bombing, you *really* didn't see that coming?

I'm italian, working for a danish company. We're (both) next on the list. I won't be surprised at all when our turn will come.

Re:Still convinced?

[squiggleslash]

This isn't civil. It's also a little ignorant of British politics.

1. There are three major parties in the UK, the Labour party, Liberal Democrats, and Conservatives. The Lib Dems have too small a base to be likely to be elected, and usually respond to this by issuing "feel good" manifestos that are clearly unworkable in practice. The Lib Dems was the only anti-war party in the last election, and its anti-war stance was considered by many to be lukewarm.
2. Both the Conservatives and Labour Party are, ultimately, pro-US-alliances. While the Conservatives made a number of campaign comments criticising Blair's honesty with regards to the lead up to the Iraq war, nobody seriously believes that this party, which is far more closely aligned to Bush's ideologies and other political positions, wouldn't ally itself with Bush on being elected.
3. The Labour party's alliance with Bush is, by and large, bizarre, from a political standpoint. The two groups are opposites.

There's no realistic way to consider the results of the last election any kind of mandate for anything, especially as - thanks to an elected representatives first-past-the-post ballot system, no winning party has won 50% or more of the vote in my entire lifetime. British governments are almost never the popular choice of the people, largely because the people never agree upon a "right" government for them.

Re:Still convinced?

[syylk]

This isn't civil. It's also a little ignorant of British politics.

[...]

There's no realistic way to consider the results of the last election any kind of mandate for anything, especially as - thanks to an elected representatives first-past-the-post ballot system, no winning party has won 50% or more of the vote in my entire lifetime.

Yes, I'm ignorant of British politics. Thanks for the info. But then, you mean you're being governed by a group of people voted by the largest minority of people? (Just asking, really)

British governments are almost never the popular choice of the people :-| And this means that UK isn't a real democracy (as in greek's "power of the people")??? Damn, *now* I am confused. If your phrase means what I read in it, I find funny that UK wants to "export democracy" when its own country isn't ruled by the group (even coalition, if you want) with the absolute majority of votes.

Or rather, tragic. But I guess it depends on viewpoints.

Re:Still convinced?

[squiggleslash]

It fits the technical, but not moral, definition of democracy: the legislature is answerable to the people. That is, if the people really feel pissed enough, they can sack all current members of parliament at the next election.

The US has similar problems, as the three way Reform-Republican-Democratic split in the nineties showed, and indeed Bush's 1st election, where he was the choice of the states (who, similarly, have a first past the post system), but not the people.

Re:Still convinced?

[syylk]

Thanks for reply and clarification. It's clearer. Alas, not much better. It means the brits didn't sack all the parliament (and government with it) at the next election... I guess there wasn't enough pissing going on. Either that, or the alternatives looked worse.

Someone from the UK

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I'm from the UK (an hour from London) and can I just say something here.

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

[warkda rrior]

Some of us couldn't careless, it won't stop our lives

It stopped other people's lives, but I guess you could not care less.

Re:Someone from the UK

[kylegordon]

I question your roots. I question your patriotism.
You're American, aren't you? :-)

Re:Someone from the UK

[horza]

Just texted my brother who commutes and works right around where the bomb blasts are to ask if he was ok. He texted me back say, "Sure. Just watching out for low flying planes ;-)".

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

[irokie]

So you weren't that moved by seeing Pink Floyd reunite then...

Re:Someone from the UK

[MichaelSmith]

hopefully we won't whore this like September 11th was.

Blair and Bush have both been on TV in the last hour whoreing it in favour of the G8. Basically they are trying to paint the terrorists as people with G8 related issues, which is totally unproven. Especially if it turns out to be OBL, et al. I am sure they don't care less about the G8.

Re:Someone from the UK

[MagicBox]

No. Born and raised in Europe, but Canadian Citizen. I just have no tolerance for people that are always blaming the wrong doings of the government for the barbaric deaths of innocent people. Enough is enough. We've heard it all before...many times. How can you say that UK or US or Spain...and tomorrow germany and Italy...etc etc...and eventually Canada deserve it? What have those people who are daily taking the trains and busses to try and get work done to radicals in the middle east? Why do they deserve it? It is the most baseless stupid comment/comparison one can make. How can you turn a blind eye and say *next* to something like that? Osama would like to have you believe it's the WESTS fault (and I guess he is suceeding) but the truth is that it is really his and only his fault (and his groups).

Re:Someone from the UK

[Turn-X Alphonse]

and you shall forever be remembered for that statement.

I'm having quite a laugh today and you just topped it all

*Adds as friend*

Re:Someone from the UK

[oolon]

You are right compaired to the City of London blast the IRA did, these were small. Also compaired to the level of the attack on America this is nothing, just a bit of frustation for people like my gf who will be walking home tonight. I guess everyone will have to have registered oyster cards* to travel on public transport in London soon, so they can track all of our movements.

James

* Oyster Cards are electronic payment cards for public transport used in London.

Re:Someone from the UK

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Hey, good for you man. I should be killed, everyones worthless some of us just relise it.

Have fun with your patriotism, I'll have fun laughing at you for it.

Re:Someone from the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Those who are injured or have lost/injured loved ones should get the support they need, but for the rest of us, rather than running around crying "Oh woe is us!", and "The sky is falling!" would do better to just get on with things.

Changing your behaviour means, to use a horribly overused cliche, 'the terrorists have won'.

And double agree on ID cards. The money about to be wasted on that project would be far better spent on beefing up the intelligence services and police service to better administer and apply the laws we have already. We don't need anything else, and some of the more obvious knee-jerk reaction legislation should be repealed. We are meant to be a good example of enlightened civilisation, not giving a model for a 'big brother' society of sheeple.

If somebody says 'something must be done', it's a good indicator that nothing should be done - at least not without long introspection beforehand.

In all likelihood, more people will have died on the roads of the USA today than in the bombing incidents in London, and almost certainly more people will have died of starvation or other easily preventable diseases of poverty. We have more to gain by 'loving our neighbours' than smiting the heathen.

I fully expect these events to be used as an illogical justification for ID cards and national database.

May the injured and bereaved get the care an attention they need.

Re:Someone from the UK

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Actually, you just proved the grand-parent correct. Really, how *will* you get home?

Re:Someone from the UK

[MagicBox]

If you think this way: 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.
....then yes....do yourself (and everyone else) a favour and go jump from a building high enough so you can brak your nack or just split your head into pieces. Everyone is not worthless. Those who say *people from (put country name here) deserved it because of what their government is doing to (put middle eastern country here)* are worthless ...garbage....waste. People from middle eastern countires suffer from their own leader 10000 times more than what they suffer from western countires, and they thrive in hate induced by their spiritual leaders. Hate is a disease. Acts of hate are a sign of the disease spreading. This has nothing to do with what most useless people think.

Re:Someone from the UK

[GypC]

I have to agree that the best thing the British and the Western media could do is report the facts, get on with other news, dust ourselves off and continue on as if nothing happened (while behind the scenes we work as hard as ever to discover and terminate terrorist cells).

It won't happen, but it would be the best course of action.

Re:Someone from the UK

[MagicBox]

Oh great......so much for freedom of speech.......I guess someone is in love with Osama.

Re:Someone from the UK

[uprock_x]

Make that a triple on ID cards.

It just proves what a waste of time ID cards are though doesn't it?

a piece of plastic tied to a database (even with the most detailed profiles and 'risk' assessment of that individual) will not stop anyone who is determined to do plant bombs or blow themselves up. It will just screw up everyones life EXCEPT the terrrorist.

Timing on this is suspicious of course. ID Card support in the UK is descending into the gutter.

Something rather fishy afoot with Blair's speech too which seemed a little too rehearsed for my liking.

Re:Someone from the UK

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Aww so what you're saying is.. you hate me and yet hate is a disease.

Try calling a doctor because I just find this fucking funny. If you're so shallow minded you can't see how small this is then screw you man.

so what if 100, 200 or 2000 people die in this. Theres 6 billion more on this planet. It's a grain of sand on a beach.

Re:Someone from the UK

[CmdrGravy]

Well said, most of us aren't affected by this attack and it's really very cheap to act as though we are.

Re:Someone from the UK

[shish]

if we were to get rid of useless people like you around the planet, then maybe we can save enough money to help africa with food and other basic needs.....

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.

Re:Someone from the UK

[perly-king-69]

>>>>>I guess everyone will have to have registered oyster cards* to travel on public transport in London soon, so they can track all of our movements. Like a suicide bomber will care....

Re:Someone from the UK

[Laser Lou]

I really don't think that this attack should be played down, because the stakes are pretty high. This apparantly involves international terrorism, which can seriously erode relationships between countries, leading to other types of crisis, including war.

Re:Someone from the UK

[oolon]

Indeed it does not, who said it was a suicide bomber, in Madrid it was bags left on the train. It also does allow them to track done who as been on the bus, and what there prior movements were, even if stolen you might get to see a group of stolen cards traving from the same place etc, or where they were stolen, it produces leads to try to stop these (paricular) people doing it again.

James

Re:Someone from the UK

[oolon]

I did not mean to give the impression I felt it was unimportant it is, people lost their lives, this is devisting for their families. I live in london, I love living here. I was more trying to convay the attitude that i would not let it break my spirit.

James

Re:Someone from the UK

[Cally]

_Exactly_.

Re:Someone from the UK

[MagicBox]

Aww so what you're saying is.. you hate me and yet hate is a disease.
-- I never said I hated you. I just said you were a waste. Plus, hate has more than one category. You can hate someone that murdered your whole family, or you can hate someone because they believe in a different god than you and you want to kill them. But of course you're too stupid to realize that so you generalize.

Try calling a doctor because I just find this fucking funny. If you're so shallow minded you can't see how small this is then screw you man.
-- If you find it *fucking funny* then I hope this will sound funny to you as well: Fuck you. Fucking moron. I do not understand what you are referring to as *small*. I do see that the one small thing here is your brain though. 7 eplosions simultaneously.......and with a final report yet to be released, plus the deaths and the wounded add to it the fact that a whole new can of worms has been opened....this is not small you brain shrinked scarecrow.

so what if 100, 200 or 2000 people die in this. Theres 6 billion more on this planet. It's a grain of sand on a beach.
--Ah. This sums up who you are. This one sentence. Arguing with you is obviously useless. I hope nothing like this ever happens again, but if it does....I pray that you will be standing next to the fuck who's strapped in bombs. After all like you said there's 6 billion people in this planet.....what's 1 more shredded to pieces going to change.....

Re:Someone from the UK

[elgatozorbas]

True: this isn't the first terrorist attack (I can call them terrorists, can I?) and most likely won't be the last.
True: most likely this bombing will get more media attention than other conflicts where innocent people were hurt.
True: probably some politicians will USE this event for their own agenda

True: "I couldn't care less" is the most egoistic cynical and macho comment ever published on /. You realise that those "not caring whatsoever about other's life" are the kind of person commiting this attack?
Let me know next time somthing horrible happens to you, I will be happy to share my sentiment about it.

Re:Someone from the UK

[Barkmullz]

How could the parent post be classified a troll? What is wrong with you people? Comparing the death of people with seeing a pink elephant, and caring equally little about both, is a sign of moral retardation.

Re:Someone from the UK

[bhamm]

No. Born and raised in Europe, but Canadian Citizen. I just have no tolerance for people that are always blaming the wrong doings of the government for the barbaric deaths of innocent people. Enough is enough. We've heard it all before...many times. How can you say that UK or US or Spain...and tomorrow germany and Italy...etc etc...and eventually Canada deserve it? What have those people who are daily taking the trains and busses to try and get work done to radicals in the middle east? Why do they deserve it? It is the most baseless stupid comment/comparison one can make. How can you turn a blind eye and say *next* to something like that? Osama would like to have you believe it's the WESTS fault (and I guess he is suceeding) but the truth is that it is really his and only his fault (and his groups).

You need to read a history book(s).. I don't think anyone believes that any of the people who died 'deserved it',.. but it's ridiculous to assume that the policies of their government(s) had nothing to do with these, or any other (including 9/11) attacks. It's only bad when it happens to countries on our list of 'best friends' right? I mean, you were personally outraged when Saddam (the man the US armed to the teeth) killed all those iranians right?.. and when the US armed Osama/Taliban when they were killing those 'evil' communists, right?.. you need some perspective, desperately.

Re:Someone from the UK

[llansamlet]

Those that live by the sword, die by the sword.

Shame it has to be normal people who get hurt, but the guys who deserve a little terror in their lives are locked away behind miles of steel fencing in a castle in Scotland. I'm hoping they get that twunt Blair next time.

Sod it, we deserved this. We had this coming. None of the individuals who were hurt or killed deserved it, but as a nation we did.

Besides it could be worse, some poor sods have to put up with this sort of thing day in day out. We could be living in Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Chechnia, Burundi, Uzbekistan or a thousand other places that we never feel much sympathy for. Maybe today's events will generate a bit of empathy, probably it will generate a load of rubbish rhetoric about fighting the evil-doers and some draconian crack downs on our freedom.

Re:Someone from the UK

[Drakonian]

I decided to reply instead of mod you down.

I can't believe I just read this and everyone saying they agree with you. We should forget this? Not even acknowledge it? Just wait for the next bomb to blow up innocent people and don't worry about it? Don't even worry about the thousands of people affected by this - families, friends, etc.

We can't learn anything form this? We can't be surprised that one of the cultural centres of the Western world is rocked by terrorism? We shouldn't reflect on what this means in our own lives? What our lives are worth?

I'm amazed.

Re:Someone from the UK

[Lucid Interval]

Slashdot: News for cynics. Nothing matters.

Re:Someone from the UK

[identity0]

I am a Japanese guy living in the US, and while I agree that the US media can be a bit of a panic-fest at times, I don't think this is something you can ignore.

I think it's kind of sad that you're used to mass murder, actually. I think it's more a sign of cynicsm than stoicness. I pity you that you think it's just "a fact of life" that bombs go off on the way to work.

Remembering the victims is not "whoring" as you describe. Japan will never forget its terrorist attacks on the subway, neither will the US forget 9-11 or Oklahoma City. Hopefully you won't forget this.

Re:Someone from the UK

[Turn-X Alphonse]

best post I seen in ages.

Re:Someone from the UK

[TummyX]

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.


And we would have even more if pseudo socialist wanna-be governments and insane dictators wouldn't rape their countries and destroy infrastructure. Feeding the poor is only a temporary fix. Teaching them proper self-governance is the key but most leftists think that that is "wrong".

Re:Someone from the UK

[Laser Lou]

I understand. I visited London this past January; its a very nice place. (The weather was nice too.) I have a suggestion for coping with this and rising above it: wave a British flag.

Canary Wharf shooting?

[scrm]

I have heard three reports this morning of a shooting at the business centre of Canary Wharf, possibly of a potential suicide bomber. The adjacent buildings have apparently now been evacuated.

The news sites aren't bringing anything up on this. Does anyone have any more info?

Re:Canary Wharf shooting?

[Larry Lightbulb]

It's been asked about in the press conference and denied.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[metlin]

Gee, what an insightful statement. Idiot.

AlQ has and will continue to hate us, immaterial of whether we attack Iraq, or whether we act like Ms. Goody-two-shoes.

Like someone on another board said,

"So well done to the fundamentalists today! The 8 most powerful men in the world were meeting to sort out issues on climate change and poverty to benefit the people of the world and the terrorists have managed to throw a spanner in the works."

Like this guy said, what the liberals forget is that no amount of appeasement or accomodation is going to make some asshat of a fundamentalist who receives his orders from a voice in the sky.

Civilization and Islamic terror cannot coexist, one has to go.

first 9/11... then 7/7...

[WormholeFiend]

I'm staying home on 7/11!

Re:first 9/11... then 7/7...

[Larry Lightbulb]

June the 6th next year could be an interesting one.

Re:Only two dead so far...

[NewStarRising]

USA_funded IRA Bombings were usually preceded by a warning to evacuate, so that there was little loss of life. Town-centres were evacuated.
Then a huge bomb would go off. Just to make sure people realised they were serious.
The IRA are in no way "peace-loving hippies". They are a vicious bunch of criminals.
Whoever planned this attack may have planned it to have low deaths, to lower the retaliation.
"Bombs kill 2 in London" has a lot less power for retaliation than "Bomb kills hundreds in London. War Cabinet has been formed"

Iraq is now a terrorist factory

[Chriscypher]

George Bush & Tony Blair are as much to blame for this atrocity as the idiot terrorists.

I guess Secretary of Defense Rumsfield put it best in his memo:

After noting that we do not know how to measure success in the war on terrorism, Rumsfeld asks "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?" Asking the question in this way shows the same misunderstanding that was at work in Vietnam. ... We cannot capture of kill terrorists faster than they are bred by our enemies, unless paradoxically we make capturing or killing them subordinate to winning the larger political struggle which determines the supply of terrorists.

Re:this will justify more police state

[aggles]

Mod this guy up! The dead and injured are casualties of the war, and need to be morned. I suspect shock is also felt in Iraq after every bombing. The long effects of terror will impact us all. Lots of new G8 rules and restrictions, that will have no impact on the next attack, but impact our lives under the guise of the government "doing something". Score 1 for the terrorists. Damn...

Re:G8 Protestors should be ashamed

[setantae]

Nonsense. Now we shouldn't protest against anything in case London gets bombed?

I appreciate that the assholes doing the bombing may have seen this as an opportunity, but that is down to them and apportioning any blame to people following the democratic way is disgusting.

War on Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like they're prepping for a war on Iran.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Black-Man]

Wouldn't you rather fight them on their ground?

You engage them on your terms.

Re:Fucking Animals

[meringuoid]

i cant believe you people dare politicize a trajedy like this.

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:Terrible.

[Peeteriz]

Would that protect you and your family and your neighbours against possible future terrorist attacks, or just facilitate more of them ?

Re:Only two dead so far...

[kyrre]

> Initial reports claimed only two deaths

Two confirmed deaths. Claim and confirm. Different words with different meaning. The initial report on the South east asia Tsunami was in the hundreds.

Interestingly 9/11 had claims of nearly 50,000 deaths.

Feed the troll

[N8F8]

Nice selective memory you have.

Re:Time for Reconsideration

[vandan]

Not going to happen. Problem is that this is the last resort for them. Maybe it's time for people to stop blaming the boogey-man and start considering why things happen. And no it doesn't happen because they're fanatics, or they hate our 'freedom' or any fucking bullshit like that. It's happening because of the foreign policy of the major industrial nations. How can you possibly say that British people are 'totally' unrelated? They were a major partner in the illegal invasion of Iraq. They were responsible for knowingly lying to the world over WOMD claims. And now London's been attacked. And idiots like you stick your heads in the sand and claim that you're 'totally unrelated'. It doesn't work like that.

Re:Fucking Animals

[Fingerbob]

if only I had mod points. /agree. my condolences to anyone personally involved, but otherwise - you can't legislate for crazies. the sooner this "war on terrorism" / grab for oil and power bollocks is shelved, the better for everyone else in the world.

Re:Only two dead so far...

[perly-king-69]

40 dead, 1000 injured 150 serious....so far. Fucking hippies, eh?

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[N3WBI3]

Well then the statement

Yes, because democracy does not automatically imply majority rule.

IS pretty much BS...

as for

Iraq is the rallying call for terrorists everywhere - a made-to-order rationale, generously delivered to them by our fearless leaders, Bush & Blair.

We were not in Iraq before 9/11 what was it then? So the people who hate bush and blair (I dont like bush, and dont know enough about blair to care) a so filled with that bile they dont bother to think about aything. There was terrorism before Iraq, 9/11 happened hell in 1992 the trade center was bombed... the point is ISLAMO-Terrorist dont need a made-to-order rationale, they could use the fact its July to do this.

Isreal pulls out of a settlement and what happens? shells and rockets get launched from that area going even deeper into isreal.

If we had never went into Iraq than the islamo-terrorist would have said this is about afganistan..

Re:Terrible.

[TheSuperlative]

Bush & Blair are as much to blame for the deaths of poor innocents in their countries as the idiot terrorists. I'd say that is an extreme exaggeration. There will always be these cause-and-effect battles with terrorism, but needless to say, I'd say Al Qaeda definitely threw the first real punches (Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings, USS Cole, 9/11). I think it's misguided to try to blame the quandary in Iraq on terrorist activity, as it existed prior to the invasion of Iraq and has not intensified or noticably altered. In fact, we have seen a decrease in the complexity of the attacks since 9/11 if that event is used as a measuring stick. It is absurd to try to blame acts of terror against a nation on two leaders of legitimate elected governments. NATO's actions in Afghanistan have severely degraded Al Qaeda's primary base of operations, and substantially limited their ability to train individuals capable of carrying out attacks as complex as those of 9/11. Is that the same as carrying out a terrorist attack in one's own nation? Hardly. Are you suggesting that it is somehow wrong for a world leader to attempt to protect one's people? I think this comment clearly demonstrated how absurd people can be when cooler heads do not prevail. Clearly, the same problem exists on the other side with the idiots proposing to bomb Mecca (an action that would turn a war against a virtual handful of extremists who happen to be Muslim into one against Muslims).

And buses too

[Any Web Loco]

You're right - they are clever. First they take out the Central line, then the hit the buses. Transport in London grinds to a halt.

Re:And buses too

[ear1grey]

BBC are reporting theories that suggest the bus bomb may not have been planned i.e. not a suicide bomb, or a plant, but the bomber(s) accidentally blowing themselves up.

Re:What will the EU do?

[kevinbr]

"kill then at source" ......?

The Point of terrorists is they do no wear uniforms and publish their home address. Tit for tat killing solves nothing, we saw some poor afghans wasted by US explosive might. As long as we condone killing poor people with bombs from the sky and sucking our teeth in satisfaction, this is as long as the survivors will either turn themselves to violence or support those who use violence.

We use violence, they use violence. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

A man bombs innocents in a tube station.....is he a fanatic? A highly educated American bombs innocents in a dirt poor village....is he a fanatic?

On and on it goes......kill them with no process of justice and then they will come and kill you with no process of justice.

Re:First Post

[VagaStorm]

IRA and ETA has a little different agenda with their bombs. They are supposed to scare and get support, but it they over do it they will lose support. This is why IRA and ETA often warn of their attacks so there will be as few lifes lost as possible. This is however not the case for middle east terrorists as large parts of the population sees Europeans and Americans as the enemies and therefore they are legit targets.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[argStyopa]

Yeah, because it's all about the justification. Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall that muslim extremists hated the US and Britain sometime before the invasion of Iraq?

Heaven forbid we actually blame the murderous savages who commit the crime or perhaps the manipulative amoral thugs who pollute Islam with their rationalizations and fatwas legitimizing (in the stunted brains of brainwashed drones) such acts.

Oooh, and you called the terrorists "idiots" - man, that's some tough talk.

Children at schools

[rbarreira]

One problem that is reportedly happening is that schools where classes had already started at the time of the attacks are not delivering the kids to anyone except their respective parents, who often have no easy way to reach the schools without using public transportation, which is of course closed in most or all cases. If this was happening in my town people would just go on foot, but this is huge London we're talking about!

Re:Terrible.

[dalutong]

I'm not agreeing with the GP, but there are plenty of times when the government is in part responsible.

If you have a repressive government, then you have to expect retaliation. If you attack an ally, then you have to expect retaliation.

Or, on a more domestic level, if you attack one guy, you can expect his brother to fight back.

Of course you can argue that one side acted more legitimately. Or that one event was in retaliation. But there things get fuzzy.

The Kurds were repressed legally under Saddam. Blacks were repressed leagally in the States for a long time. Japanese were repressed leagally during WWII. I would have stated any retalliation against the government or it's supporters (read: voters) would have been understandable, if not legit.

I don't know anything about the group that did this. But plenty of moderate Muslims have taken a fundamentalist turn because they felt that their brother is being repressed. Orginally the hate was vented towards the Saudi monarchy, which is seen as corrupt and unholy in a holy land. The British are seen in an unfavorable light because they gave away the palestinians land to the zionists. America is hated for similar reasons (supporting governments that are or have been considered illegitimate by the residents.)

Libertarians would disagree, though. There is only a crime committed when the trigger is pulled (not when you choose not to hire someone due to race/sexual preference/etc.)

I'm not taking sides. Just throwing out another perspective.

Re:Terrible.

[Peeteriz]

Right now in Iraq there are muslim radical fighting organisatiations, well armed, able to easily recruit angry, desparate people, and getting experience in armed conflicts.
This is a terrorist breeding ground.
Before the occupation, Husein would harshly eliminate any such groups, because they would threaten his power. Right now the Iraqi state is teethless and cannot stop even 3-person gangs of robber thugs.
I have seen no valid argument that the USA invasion of Iraq has made the horrible murders (such as this London case) less likely to happen. Instead it seems to be the other way around.

conspiracy theory

[fredu]

So now they're burrying the global warming issues and starting to talk about including new clauses for terrorism prevention. And Bush is very pleased with the resolution the G8 leaders took. It all seems so very convenient...

Be prepared to see many conspiracy-theory books in stores soon...

Re:conspiracy theory

[/ASCII]

You mean something like this? Dan Brown is probably working on a book about a concpiracy to blow of a few bombs in order to sell more books about conspiracys.

Re:conspiracy theory

[BrainstormOC]

How on earth can people mod this comment Insightful? Convenient? You can't possibly be suggesting that this was orchestrated by the Bush administration. Ya know. In the one picture on the BBC feed, there WAS a black helicopter in the background. Yup- time to get out our tinfoil hats again.

Re:conspiracy theory

[Achra]

The worst part is, your comment is legitimate. Nobody can rule out something like that, because it's something that our fearless leader would do. Did he do it? No one can say. But you certainly can't rule it out. I'll be modded troll for sure, but I still haven't ruled him out for the 9/11 attacks. He's dangerous, he's certifiable, and I sure didn't vote for him this time around.

Re:conspiracy theory

[BrainstormOC]

lol- It's so true. I just can't understand why these vicious filthy idiots can murder people repeatedly and yet the left coddles them and supports them instead of the people working to fight these evil bastards. As soon as I can after work today I'm going to post a copy of a letter written to the editor of The New-Herald from Perkasie, PA, my local hometown paper that states everything so perfectly it's not even funny. If you care to, check it out after 6pm EST at http://massiveoverload.com/xoops/modules/news/ Evil can not be coddled and negotiated with!

Re:conspiracy theory

[BrainstormOC]

Please state your evidence for your position.

Re:conspiracy theory

[Achra]

Um, I have a hard time believing that you actually want me to link to a bunch of conspiracy theorism sites. But for your amusement, here you go.
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History /Missile-Not-Flight-77.html
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html
http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html
If you are actually asking for hard evidence, your comment is more of a troll than mine was. If hard evidence existed, Bush would be in prison right now.

Re:conspiracy theory

[m50d]

Don't forget it's happening while the government is trying to introduce mandatory ID cards against the will of the populace.

Re:conspiracy theory

[BrainstormOC]

Funny how there's no hard evidence for these claims but people still persist in believing. People really throw that word troll around loosely nowadays. Can't really see how it's being a troll to ask for facts. Is it trolling to discuss this stuff in an open way? More and more people are being modded troll for simply having an opposing point of view to the liberal propaganda or more often for asking for you guys to back up your claims. Sorry but I don't buy arguments just because they are being made. But thanks for the links. I will cehck them out. Really- I'm not being a troll. I'm trying to understand your side of the story.

Re:conspiracy theory

[Atzanteol]

Wow. I.. Er. Jeez, I don't know quite what to say. I mean, sure you may disagree with the guy. But to believe that he would sacrifice thousands of his own citizens lives, and have the ability to cover it all up *perfectly*, to do what now? Pass a few laws?

I think I can rule it out. Unless, of course, you have compelling evidence that doesn't include paranoid rantings, coincidences and assumptions?

Re:conspiracy theory

[Brother Grifter]

England has national id's. London has more survellience (sp?) than any other city in the world. Neither protected them from this attack.

So introducing national id's in the United States will provide us with what exactly?

Re:conspiracy theory

[m50d]

No, England doesn't have national ids. There's a bill currently under discussion in parliament which would introduce them. I agree they wouldn't provide us with anything, but from a conspiracy point of view these attacks are a convenient thing for the UK government to point to and say "there, that's why we need ID cards"

Re:conspiracy theory

[gg3po]

It wouldn't really surprise me if there were more to this than meets the eye. It is all rather convenient for those that need to justify their continued war with Eastasia.

History shows us that the corrupt powers make use of public fear of terrorism as a means of rallying public support for their own purposes.

It wouldn't be the first time the British government has artificially encouraged terrorist attacks on its' own citizenry, creating an environment of fear that benefits a larger agenda.

Also see:

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukresponse/story/0,11017 ,751102,00.html
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2115371.stm
• http://observer.guardian.co.uk/Distribution/Redire ct_Artifact/0,4678,0-578140,00.html
• http://politics.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,9174,8 37333,00.html

Re:conspiracy theory

[JSkills]

Try this link, if you're really serious about not ruling anything out. It's very interesting to say the least.

Re:conspiracy theory

[Brother Grifter]

Thanks for the correction. I was seriously under the impression that they had national id's. Maybe I'm confusing them with another European country.

Re:conspiracy theory

[gg3po]

Before I'm hastily categorized as just another "liberal", let me say that I'm against abortion, welfare, and affirmative action. However, I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican and am no fan of Bush or Blair. Your repeated references to "liberals" reveals that you have succumbed to at least some degree of groupthink. I'm willing to bet you consider yourself a "conservative" and therefore you have to stand up against anything remotely categorizable as "liberal" in the defense of your particular group's percieved dominant opinion. I don't really believe in conservatism or liberalism. I think they are largely false idealogies used by the powerful to herd the masses into convenient groups meant to fight amongst each other, thus keeping them distracted from issues of real import. I'd recommend checking out the political compass website. It's not perfect, but it's better than most political scales.

Re:frogs

[flubbergust]

Read this you moron and any of you that think the French aint doing much to fight the war on terrorism. CIA and the US goverment thinks otherwise.

US and France have secret anti-terrorism centre.
WASHINGTON - The U.S. and France set up a top-secret anti- terrorism centre in Paris that does not gather information, but plans covert operations against terrorists, the Washington Post reported on Sunday, citing unnamed U.S. and foreign secret service specialists.
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/07/us-and-fran ce-have-secret-anti.html

And BTW, I am not french. Now go and fsck off.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Angostura]

Well, I'm based in the City of London, but I'm OK. The problem with your post isn't so much the flamebate it contains, but the way it reflects the flamebait that U.S foreign policy can on occasion seem to contain.

Let's get one thing clear, I don't like the Iranian regime, but I bloody well think that they have the right to develop nuclear power. Indeed in this globally warming world I would argue it is possibly a moral imperative. The West should be helping create a well regulated and monitored nuclear industry there, supplying technology if necessary. Instead we get: "they are going for the bomb".

That's not the kind of strategy that will "kill the insane fanatics at source", it's the kind that breeds them.

You're absolutely right, the suicider bombers etc don't care. They've made up their mind. But we shouldn't help them recruit people by being stupid ourselves.

For the record. Yes, I think the Iraq war was incredibly stupid, and yes, I think we absolutely have to keep the troops in their now while the mess is sorted out.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Anonymous Coward]

If "they" don't care about "us", it's only because we've shown that we don't care about them. 3000 westerners die on 9/11, and the world stops for a week and ripples continue to be felt four years later. Meanwhile, 30,000 people die from the effects of poverty each motherfucking day and the world carries on as normal and pushing for even greater "liberalisation" of their markets. Don't try to hide behind "poverty happens" either; it's largely a predictable outcome from the policies we deliberately and knowingly push onto the afflicted people in order to maintain and enhance our material quality of life. Killing a few more of "them" will make zero difference.

We make me sick.

Re:This was innevitable

[MagicBox]

You should be strapped in bombs and blown up...at a garbage site somewhere
You fking naive useless prick of a human being. What good are you alive?

I am hoping for the best for the victims...

[gatkinso]

...hopefully the animals that did this somehow botched the job reducing the number lost and maimed.

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[rbarreira]

Do you really think that there isn't much fault from governments?? The problem is, the innocent people are dying, not the greedy bastards who are profiting (and will continue to profit) from the wars they wage...

A Me Too Thread

[thelizman]

So I hope all the people of America today will stand with us as we did through 9/11.

Don't worry, we're with you. These cowards will all pay for this.

Re:What will the EU do?

[MynockGuano]

The US for starting all this shit and puttingh the world in danger

Hmm, I seem to vaguely recall there being something happening right before the United States got involved...

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[N3WBI3]

Ack I need to preview my own post... grabbed the wrong thing off the clipboard I should have said

The statement

They don't have to be. Iraq is the rallying call for terrorists everywhere

is BS..

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[reidbold]

I am of the opinion that if we hadn't invaded Iraq (and I don't necessarily agree with it) terrorist activity would have continued, maybe even with more ferocity.

How did the invasion and occupation of Iraq reduce terrorist acts from other countries?

Good website for information

[Old Wolf]

DEBKAfile was always incisive, accurate, and very up-to-date during the Iraq and Afghan wars and September 11, so I'll trust their reporting on this story!

Re:Good website for information

[uunh haun]

debka is crap. During the time you mentioned they published reports that saddam was hiding in belarus, that there was an underground city under baghdad, that there were WMD facilities under the "sand dunes" that could be moved by remote control and that iraqi wmd is in lebanon, among hundreds and hundreds of other bullshit stories. debka is for morons who want to believe they are getting some sort of inside information, but all they really get is utter crap.

Re:Good website for information

[Danny Rathjens]

In case people don't realize you are being sarcastic. debkafile is much more of rumour site than a news site. It is still interesting to read, it's just that you should take anything you read there with a large grain of salt. :)

p.s. their color schemes have always been very hard on the eyes.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Angostura]

and yes, I'm pretty annoyed so mis-spelled 'there'.

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[paitre]

Nor me.

In fact - cdbee - go fuck yourself with a live hand grenade.
The world will be better for it.

Re:Bomb Mecca

[ednopantz]

Of course, their version of the self-hating left would ask:

"Why do those lunatic Christian fundamentalist wackjobs hate us and how can we change to accomodate their demands?"

At least that's what a significant chunk of Western opinon bleats out every time something like this happens...

Nobody Here Supports The IRA

[thelizman]

Put the crack pipe down troll. The IRA learned back in the 80's that they can't operate in US borders. Thats why they've moved to South/Central America and North Africa.

Hrm. Irishmen in the desert. There's a joke there somewhere.

Re:Nobody Here Supports The IRA

[thelizman]

I'm sorry, I was operating under the impression that Sinn Fein was a recognized UK political party with four democratically elected members of parliment and over 200 lesser elected officials. I didn't realize that fundraising for politics was the same as buying bombs and killing civilians.

Re:Nobody Here Supports The IRA

[kevinbr]

You might have also operated under the impression that the audience here has any perspective and knowledge of history and current affairs. They do not.

The TV burbs the latest "facts" and the sheep bleet in unison.

In the technical world I have never got 10 people in a telco room to agree what a Portal was.

In the political world I have never seen a real definition of the word terrorism.

Democracy is what they tell you it is. Not what you want to believe it is.

Re:Terrible.

[erroneus]

While I agree with you that "we" (the U.S.) should not be warring in other countries while we are trying to sort out our own problems and that I do not believe the motives of Bush are completely honorable, I do not believe there is an excuse for terrorism (sneak attacks on civilians). It doesn't matter if Bush or Blair are complete criminals in your mind or anyone else's. Attack the people you think are responsible and leave civilians alone.

(Yeah, I know *you* are not the one, I just say it in general to all people in general.)

Al Quaeda is a very dishonorable group of people. In my mind, they are a bunch of primitive-minded neanderthals. Attacking civilians who mostly don't care about any of what's going on isn't going to make an impression on the decision-makers and legislators in our governments. If it hasn't been clear in the past, it should be becoming more clear now -- THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT HUMAN LIFE BEING LOST. Killing civilians only gives them more power and control. Killing civilians and causing fear and hysteria only gives more power to the leaders to legislate and send more troops and more and more of what they've been doing.

AQ should have been using their resources to do battle on the political/intellectual channels rather than on the ones that are least likely to succeed. I'm sure this is no new idea to anyone and certainly not to AQ. This is why I think they are a bunch of primitive-minded savages who really just want an excuse to destroy things.

And I know this will not be a popular opinion, but frankly, if this keeps up, I'm perfectly comfortable with an attack not unlike the ones on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whatever it takes to make the bastards stop, I am all for. We cannot make these jackasses stop without one of two things happening: 1) they change their tactics and attempt to make change through peaceful means or 2) they are completely eradicated. If "1" doesn't happen soon, "2" will. I don't see a "middle ground" here and I don't see how these people can be pleased in any way.

or is it?

[irokie]

I heard on the news (I don't know London all that well) that the area affected is where the biggest Mosque in London is and has the densest Muslim population in London too...

Doesn't make sense coming from al Qaeda...

not that we can be sure it's them...

Re:or is it?

[Per Abrahamsen]

They don't feel bad about killing moslems, or as they call it, "making martyrs of" moslems, as they rationalize they buy them a ticked to paradise.

Re:Fucking Animals

[kevinbr]

The Western societies predominated by their superior use of organized violence. If you had any sense of history this might occur to you that terrorism is a symptom of broader issues. No doubt you vented at the US bombers that killed the innocents in a village in Afghanistan. You see, we kill them, they kill us. Over and Over. And simpletons like you pipe up about animals. The British were the first to use Gas in arial attacks against innocent villages - Iraq in the 30's. But you knew that of course. When an innocent baby is dead in London or Kandahar or Bagdad, it is dead. And if it was killed by a US soldier or a muslim fanatic, their killers are both as you so eleoquently pose - fucking animals. So the villagers and poor will continue to fight against those who drop bombs from the sky and use the language of Orwell to justify their killing.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Pecisk]

Your emotions are really human, but there is one big fundamental flaw - it is violence which causes more violence. War in Iraq (Which was much more bloody and messy than war in Afganistan, which was mererly a clean-up operation of Al Queda) was mistake in the way it was executed and accepted. Motivation and what really happens matters much more than very heoritic words that 'we will root out this plaque', 'terrorists won't win'. Guess what, it is NOT terrorists who win in this war. Violence, cruelty do. Arm business do. Oil business do. You should understand that it is NOT a movie. These are people out there who do these crimes. People like me and you. There is evil in everyone and somehow something managed to push these people so far to do that - KILL. And I guess after all this fuss, horror and emotions will come clear mind and you will see that it is all staged. Someone heavily benifits from that. For someone it is game. And guess what - those people are NOT terrorists. They just cold calculated, motivated to rule this world THIS way.
Learn to have pain, learn to forgive. Learn not to act in revenge. Learn to understand people. Protect yourself, but not only from others - from you too.

such a position

[circletimessquare]

is untenable with the majority of world interpretations of human morality

Re:This was innevitable

[rjw57]

It is the leaders here in England that are justifying. The anti-war sentiment is pretty strong. Unfortunately the propaganda service which pretends to be the US media probably doesn't report this :).

Blah

[Bl4ckM4gic]

I live in London and though 9/11 was horrific on a much larger scale, seeing chaos around my own home makes me understand the frightening effect terror attacks have on not just the direct victims but the entire city. These are bus and train that I see and use every day and while I'm statistically quite safe - the thought of myself, friends or family being injured or killed next time will sit for the time to come and effect our lives in small but significant ways. The fact is, we knew we were going to be attacked but there's little to nothing we could do to prevent it. It's impossible to search every single person moving around the city. Even when we bring terrorist to justice, there are new ones waiting in queue to take their place. I don't see how terrorism can ever be stopped because it only takes a couple of evil bastards to commit mass murder.

Re:Blah

[Fantastic Lad]

I don't see how terrorism can ever be stopped because it only takes a couple of evil bastards to commit mass murder.

The people might try removing the psychopathic leadership and the black ops agencies from power; the ones who are perpetrating these, so-called terrorist attacks on behalf of the people they want their wars to continue against.

Bombing the West with Terrorist attacks does not make the West want to stop tormenting the Middle East. It makes the West want to continue its wars there, which keeps the tax-cash flowing from the public and into the pockets of the elitists in charge of government and the weapons factories. The U.S./British/Isreali leadership are the ones who stand to gain the most from these sorts of actions, which is why they continue to perpetrate them.

Honestly. It's easy to see. They barely bother to cover their tracks anymore.

-FL

I was on my way to work when it happened

[Tim C]

Thankfully, I was late, so I missed the worst of it. My train was held at one of the stations on the way in because of "power surges" in multiple locations. I finally made it to Fenchurch Street (just by the Tower of London) and, having heard that the District Line was suspended, set off about finding a bus.

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.

Re:Terrible.

[Lionel B]

Weakness had emboldened and strengthened terrorists. Pulling out of Beirut and Mogidishu has done so much more to fuel the growth of terrorism than any foreign policy.

LOL... right... and bombing the merry bj out of Afghanistan and Iraq has really helped to reduce terrorism.

Re:What will the EU do?

[jcr]

The US for starting all this shit

Care to tell us how the US blew up the WTC?

I'm sure you enjoy bitterly denouncing a government that won't try to have you done in for speaking your mind. Try asking Salman Rushdie what it's like to get on the wrong side of the fundamentalists.

-jcr

Re:Fucking Animals

[N3WBI3]

whilst simultaneously invading the same countries whose inhabitants you've starved for the last ten years.

we starved them? you mean the vaunted oil for food program which was abused by saddam and the UN was the reason people starved? BTW the sanctions were *UN* not US...

Tell yuo what say youre knee jerk responces out loud so you can actually post something that is not a compleate reflex rant about the evil us..

Potential terrorist

[Tune]

But that's not a 'good' action from anybody's viewpoint, and even that will not be enough to stop all potential terrorists.

Exactly. Isn't the problem that most terrorists are in fact just potential terrorists until the moment they blow up something? Apart from the profesionals, like Bin Laden himself, they're often model citizens. By the time you find out something's wrong, it's too late.

Retaliation shows that you're capable of doing the same evils; it doesn't prove that you're in control.

--
I say: Death to all fanatics

Re:Sounds good to me.

[Peeteriz]

Everyone of who exactly ?
Do you know who is responsible ?
If so, are you sure that you are right ?

Re:Sounds good to me.

[Qzukk]

I'm all for killing every God-damned one of 'em.

That's funny, so are they. Welcome to the moral low ground.

Re:This was innevitable

[tweek]

I'm going to ask you a serious question. I'm not doing it to be confrontational. I want to ask everyone this same question.

Do you HONESTLY believe that Al-Quaeda gives two shakes about the lives of innocent civilians that died as a result of military operations in Afghanistan (justfied w.r.t 9/11) or in Iraq (unjustified imho)?

Cause if you do then tell me why in the hell they're fucking bombing Iraqi citizens?

This is NOT about "innocent lives lost" in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere. It's about retaining power and crushing the West. Pure and simple. Just like Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. or Randal Terry and his bunch of Christian extremist wankers want to retain power, so does the extreme fundamentalist Islamic movement. They see the west as a whole as immoral and evil so they attack it. They see any Muslim who doesn't agree with thier specific brand of Islam as the enemy (blowing up police stations in Iraq for instance) and justified in dying. It's the same fucking sick morality that people in the U.S. use to shoot abortion doctors and blow up abortion clinics.

Death toll rises

[dannyitc]

Reuters is reporting that the death toll is now at 12, with two of London's major hospitals reporting taking care of at least 175 patients total, with at least 30 in critical or serious condition.

Re:Death toll rises

[stevebrowne]

Sky now reporting 45. And increasing.

ASSumptions

[thelizman]

Not all of the comedians are American either. Most of us aren't even awake yet, so you might want to redirect your comments to your own hemisphere.

Al Qaida Claims Responsibilty

[Nova Express]

BERLIN (AP) -- A group calling itself "Secret Organization -- al-Qaida in Europe" has posted a claim of responsibility for the series of blasts in London, a German magazine reported Thursday. Der Spiegel magazine reported that the group posted its message on a Web site popular with Islamic militants, which it did not name. It said the group claimed the explosions were in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Der Spiegel quoted the message as saying "Rejoice, Community of Muslims" and said its authenticity could not immediately be confirmed.

MILAN, July 7 (Reuters) - A previously unknown group claimed responsibility in the name of al Qaeda for a series of blasts in London that killed at least two people and wounded 185, the Italian news agency ANSA reported on Thursday. The "Secret Group of al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe" claimed the attack in a Web site posting and warned Italy and Denmark to withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, ANSA said. The claim could not be verified and did not appear on any of the Web sites normally used by al Qaeda.

One War, Many Fronts.

Re:What will the EU do?

[arudloff]

Then what should we do?

Just for conversations sake.. A lot of people like to talk about how awful the current policy is.. but never offer up an alternative.

Re:What will the EU do?

[NeedleSurfer]

Wrong the Twin Tower was a response not an aggression, try again, and Irak had nothing to do with Al Quaeda, but you morons won't get that in your mind even if your own CIA tells it to you. The US has been bullying people aorund the world for decades, and i'd like to point out that dubya actually declared the axis of evil before the Twin Towers fell.

Re:Fucking Animals

[N3WBI3]

Oh, how about giving lots of money to Israel that shoot kids and women?

We also give money to egypt and now the *shudder* PLA. Isreal is surronded by people who dont think they *the people and the nation* should exist, and they dont go around purposefully shooting women and children, that place is a war zone and bad crap happens there.

The bombing of Iraq (im assuming you mean teh one by Clinton) was in responce to an assaniation attempt on an ex-president.

I hate them and I want to fight the war on terrorism too but I feel that Bush's way is the wrong way.

I can agree with you there..

Re:First Post

[SoundGuyNoise]

Shouldn't anarchists, by nature of their philosophy, have no organization or leadership?

Re:What will the EU do?

[Peeteriz]

Fight whom ?

Can you defeat one (very small, but very active and visible) group of people by fighting a mostly unrelated huge group ?

(There are 1.3 billion muslims, for example - more than the population of Europe+USA combined.)

Tired of America being blamed...

[ILoveFreedom]

First - I am truly saddened by what has happened in London. I send all my prayers and best wishes for the people of London and Britain. Everybody blames america for what is happening around the world. I'm tired of it! If everyone dislikes America so much, stop sending your children to America to be Educated, stop migrating to America to find a better place to live, stop trying to find jobs in America! Stop sending families and family members with one-way tickets to America! On the other hand, if you come to America to join our society peacefully, then I will welcome you. Our society is not without its faults! Given these there is still no place on earth where I would rather live. I served in the US Marines for 8 years and been to 18 different countries. I can say I have a broad viewpoint of the world! America does a lot of good around the world, and sometimes we do make mistakes. Unfortunately, the young men and women in the Military (of any country) are often caught in the middle of "Politics". Just remember if there weren't any politicians, then we wouldn't need militaries! Terrorists are cowards! Period! If America wasn't recognized as a leader in the world, then they will find someone else to enact they fury. Those of you who say that America should stay behind its own borders and become an isolationist think again! America and the world tried that in WWII. Remember that era? Any group in the world that uses "religion" as a means to Kill, are cowards. I know many people who belong to the Islam religion and they don't kill people... Islam is probably the most peaceful religion in the world... Every religion has their "Extremists". It is the extremist who give all a bad name. Unfortunately, we must hunt down the leaders of the terrorist's and remove them from power. Just my two cents....

Re:Tired of America being blamed...

[JimboG1]

"Everybody blames america for what is happening around the world. I'm tired of it!"

There's a lot I don't like about that States, and there are many things that, if I was US president (which is unlikely I know) I would do very differently, but I don't blame America. I blame the people who did it; I blame the people who bank-rolled them; I blame the poeople who helped them; and I blame the people who tacitly co-operated with them, among others.

It has to be remembered that personal choice, when chosing such extreme courses of action, is the primary motivator.

Re:Tired of America being blamed...

[andyt]

Heya, a Londoner here. Thank you for your kind thoughts.

But please realise that it is perfectly possible to like America as a country while simultaneously disagreeing vigorously with the policies of the current American government.

Re:Tired of America being blamed...

[ILoveFreedom]

I understand about disagreeing with the American Government. I disagree with a lot of the policies of my government and NOT just on foreign policy. Unfortunately, we as Americans vote who we think will do the best job and then they get in office they often do the opposite of what they say. Best of luck to you. I hope you didn't have any loved ones, family, or friends that were in the bombings... Peace...

Those who forget history...

[Anonymous Coward]

are doomed to repeat it.

Remember Neville Chamberlain? "Peace in our time?" Caving in to tyrants won't get you peace. Killing them will.

The war we fought against Germany and Japan brought us 50 years of peace.

The Islamists have the same goals as Hitler -- world domination with them in charge. Giving in to them now will only encourage them.

Re:Those who forget history...

[d34thm0nk3y]

The war we fought against Germany and Japan brought us 50 years of peace.

Yeah, 'cause WWII was the last war the US was involved in...

Re:Those who forget history...

[Skye16]

Wait, they do? There's one sitting 3 feet to my left, and the only goal I know that he has is to go to Chilis with me for lunch.

Correction, he wants to go get lunch, leave work early, and go play Battlefield 2.

In retrospect, he did eat one of my cookies without my permission a few weeks ago. I bet that was the first step in his sinister plot for world domination. That fucker.

Re:Those who forget history...

[RavenSlay3r]

Actually, it was.
Everything after WWII untill Post-September-11th were 'armed conflicts' not 'declared wars'.

Re:Those who forget history...

[Marillion]

The Islamists have the same goals as Hitler -- world domination with them in charge.

I couldn't disagree more. I'd even suggest quite the opposite. The rallying cry of terrorist leaders, the method they use to recruit, is assert that the Western world, the US in particular, is out for world domination. For evidence, they point to the US military bases in their backyards and torture in Guantanamo.

Another post quotes from Battlestart Galatica, "The opposite of war isn't always peace, sometimes is't slavery." Freedom and Slavery are on opposite ends of the spectrum. War is in the middle. The Islamist who feels oppressed or fears enslavement by Western countries knows the pathway to freedom, his freedom, is war against the oppressor.

A key front in the "war on terror" needs to include stopping the supply of new terrorists. It's one thing (an important one at that) to go after the known terrorists; but, terrorists aren't born terrorists. Ordinary people are made into terrorists by some radicalizing event. The life of Ayman al Zawahiri is a text-book example of how an otherwise decent fellow is radicalized into a monster.

I don't have the easy answer to how to do that. Frankly, I wouldn't trust anyone who said they did. But I don't see anyone in authority even trying to work on the problem.

Re:Those who forget history...

[mr100percent]

What Islamists have said they want world Domination? They don't care if you go and eat bacon while drinking beer with prostitutes at a casino, generally all they want is to do their own thing in their own countries. Heck, the Islamist party won in Algeria's democratic elections fair and square and by a wide margin, but France and the US couldn't tolerate such a thing happening, and backed the coup. Algeria went from democracy to violent civil war.

Re:Those who forget history...

[bored_geek]

The war we fought against Germany and Japan brought us 50 years of peace.

I think the people (on both sides) who died in Korea and Vietman (and a host of other proxy wars in Africa and Central America) would disagree with you.

Re:Those who forget history...

[VdG]

Just to add a voice for poor old Neville, Britain at that time was in no shape to fight a war. The agreement may not have stopped Nazi Germany but it did buy some time for Britain to start tooling up. It may also have contributed to Hitler's reluctance to attack us: he would have preferred us as allies, or at least neutral. Chamberlain's actions may have contributed to Hitler's view that we had no stomach for a fight.

Re:Those who forget history...

[Hack Jandy]

Those were not actual declarations of war.

HJ

Re:Those who forget history...

[JofCoRe]

Yeah, 'cause WWII was the last war the US was involved in...

Well, it was the last legal war.
Congress has the authority to declare war, not the president. The last time that Congress declared war was WWII.

Re:Those who forget history...

[pooly7]

Last one ? Ok, Vietnam was just a tourism trip abroad :-)

Re:Those who forget history...

[nobbin]

WWII was the last one in a legal sense. I beleive that vietnam was defined as a "police action", or maybe that was korea...

Re:Those who forget history...

[surprise_audit]

Did you notice the fancy footwork as the US avoided getting involved in the Falklands?? Impressive, I thought...:)

Re:Those who forget history...

[Descalzo]

So what about the Civil War? Congress didn't declare war against the South. The did, however, allow the President to wage war. Nothing new here.

Re:Terrible.

[Asmodai]

Like losing their superiority in the world to the United States?

So please specify and quantify where their "righteous anger" comes from?

Re:First Post

[agraupe]

Yeah. And if they ever figure out how to detonate explosives remotely, we're screwed! At least with Al-Qaeda's current M.O., bombing becomes a self-correcting problem.

Re:Terrible.

[thelizman]

The capital of Saudi Arabia is Riyadh. All you're proposing is the random killing of random Muslism, who may or may not be Saudi (or even Arab), considering Mecca's status as a pilgrimage destination.

It's not about retaliating against Saudi Arabia, it's about retaliating against Islamofascists of all nationalities. Along the lines of the original posters thinking, Mecca would be a perfect target.

Unfortunately, the original poster is a moron. Mecca is not where the terrorists are. They're in small towns and neighborhoods in Europe and the US where they can operate without intense scrutiny. All that is needed to combat them there is vigilance and resolve.

Re:What will the EU do?

[phyruxus]

>>Wouldn't you rather fight them on their ground?

He didn't say we shouldn't. He pointed out that going on a rampage would only help our enemy.

Not going berserk != giving up

Re:What will the EU do?

[MynockGuano]

Don't try to hide behind "poverty happens" either

Poverty doesn't "just happen". The United States could be poverty-stricken, too, if it did. Poverty comes from people who can't or won't take care of themselves. Frankly, I fail to see how you can put the blame on Westerners for doing too little to help people who haven't helped themselves. Prosperity begins at home; nobody will bring it to you on a silver platter. If you want it, you earn it. This is true whether you're a poor college drop-out or an entire nation.

Re:What will the EU do?

[garcia]

But that's not a 'good' action from anybody's viewpoint, and even that will not be enough to stop all potential terrorists.

It will create a new generation of terrorists that will start a backlash against the genocide.

Terrorists are like trolls. No matter what you do they will always be there acting as the provebial thorn.

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[N3WBI3]

The poor and weak are always the ones who die in war, it was as true in ww2 as it is today, that aside..

Do you really think that there isn't much fault from governments??

No I think how someone react to a situation is entirely their responsability. Hey the suicide and IED bombing in Iraq I can see as military action, blowing up a train full of people who likely oppose the war is proof that there is nothing you can do to satisify these people.

Re:What will the EU do?

[daveschroeder]

Um, wow. You actually believe that "people in Iraq", i.e., normal citizens of Iraq, have anything whatsoever to do with this?

If by "people in Iraq" you mean radical Panislamic terrorists from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and many places OTHER than Iraq, who believe there should be a single Islamic theocracy across the whole of the mideast that is the rightful seat of government for the world, then yes, absolutely.

I find this all or nothing view - especially coming from an argument point that tends to condemn "all or nothing, black and white" views - rather disconcerting.

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? (Note: any belief that terrorist ideals or those of Panislamic radicals are "just as valid" as, e.g., Western democratic ideals is pure, unadulterated moral relativism.)

That the only logical solution is to pack up, and let the threat of Panislamic radicalism fester and grow in the mideast, and to be content to deal with brutal terrorist attacks, regardless of whether more people die from "smoking" or "car accidents" each year?

Smoking is a choice. Car accidents have the word "accident" in the name for a reason. A terrorist attack is a deliberate decision on the part of another human to kill as many people, usually innocent, in the target site as is practical or possible. Additionally, the reason why airline disasters (not referring to 9/11, here) are so heavily covered even as many more die from other reasons is because larger incidents resonate negatively with people. People don't like the idea of dozens of hundreds of people dying at once. It scares them. It shakes their being. And no, it's not an effect of "the media". It's a very natural, human reaction to mass casualty.

I suppose I don't need to remind anyone of the suffering that would occur from a massive collapse of the economies of the US and/or West stemming from an inability to obtain secure, stable supplies of reasonably priced energy sources. For better or worse, this is the nature of things.

The US (and/or the West) are not responsible exclusively, or even mostly, for the situation in the mideast. The mideast has had its own difficulties with modernization since before the US was even remotely an influence, or indeed even existed. If you're content to point the finger squarely at the US or UK or the Iraq action for these attacks, be my guest. But that's a severely and seriously wrongheaded idea.

When it becomes politically expedient, the terrorists will make no distinction between London, Washington DC, Paris, or Madrid, regardless of any nations real or perceived support or non-support of, e.g., the Iraq action. And then what will you do? Be content to placate, and eventually essentially live subservient to terrorist whim and demands?

To destroy our enemy, we have to know our enemy. We have to understand that we are facing a radical fundamentalist movement with global reach and a very specific plan. They are not just out to kill us for the sake of killing us. They want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region s governments and pave the way for a new empire, an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area from Europe to Africa, from the Middle East to Central Asia.

The American people have a right to hear the answer to a fundamental question: How are we going to win this war? What is our strategy for eliminating the terrorists, discrediting their cause, and smashing their forces so that America can actually be safer?

The jihadist movement that hates us is gaining adherents around the

This comment is absolutely terrifying

[Catullus]

"You should be [m]arked for death. I question your roots. I question your patriotism. I question the purpose of your existence."

Are you seriously saying that people who are unpatriotic or who don't come from the right place should be killed?

Re:This comment is absolutely terrifying

[MagicBox]

Are you seriously saying that people who are unpatriotic or who don't come from the right place should be killed?
No. This guy should.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[Politburo]

what the liberals forget is that no amount of appeasement or accomodation is going to make some asshat of a fundamentalist who receives his orders from a voice in the sky. [sic]

First, liberals do not support appeasement or accomodation of terrorists. Get a grip. What liberals ask for is moderation in response to terror attacks. What this means is that you don't go attacking Iraq because of 9/11.

What conservatives forget is that killing all the terrorists and invading country after country in the Middle East won't magically make the problem go away.

We agree on the goal, but not the solution.

The spread of news....

[sampson7]

So far this morning I've listened to CNN and NPR, read the Washington Post and the Times of London and the BBC online.

By far the most informative site has been Slashdot -- whether from eyewitnesses posting their accounts or simply aggregating news from sources world wide. And the analysis in several of the posts has been at least as good as any of the major sources.

I was just in London a few months ago -- I think I visited every Tube station mentioned. Just know that our thoughts are most definitely with you.

Re:The spread of news....

[m50d]

Take a look at the plastic coverage. Had the story earlier, and they tend to have slightly more intelligent commenting than here.

Re:What will the EU do?

[smoke_au]

What many forget is that the support for the terrorist groups in the middle east all too often comes from financial sources already in the west.

[Consider]

1) The IRA got a large portion of its funding from so-called patriots of irish descent in the USA.
2) Many Jews and other supporters in the USA also support the Israeli's.

[Important Note!]

No I am not calling the Israeli's or the USA terrorists. They are just the only relevent examples other than the Saudi-AQ link that I can think of right now.

[My Point]

What is there to stop support for these terrorist organisations in the middle east coming from the people in the USA? Or Europe? or Asia? Russia perhaps? What about South America? Africa? It could come from anywhere.

[Ergo]

Pressure should be placed on finding methods of halting financial support to the terrorists. Attempting to "convince the people into not joining up" has already been shown to fail dismally.

Re:What will the EU do?

[grasshoppa]

Oh? You have information that links Iraq to the WTC disaster?

I'm sure Bush Jr would love to talk to you then, as his own intelligence people can't even provide this.

We picked a fight with Iraq because we were looking for WMD, which many of us knew to be a bullshit reason. Now, some time later, we can't find them and no one seems to care about it.

It is truly a sad point in history. Historians will look back on our time in much the same way we look back on our expansion across the west, pushing the natives out where ever we settled.

Re:What will the EU do?

[AntoniusBloc]

>> The more desparate you make the people in Iraq, the more recruits are easily available for terrorist groups.

This is false reasoning. The desperate do not usually become terrorists, they are too busy trying to care for themselves or their families. It is the bored and moderately well-to-do (quite often educated in the self-loathing West) who are more likely to become coward terrorists.

>>The only pressure that would 'kill them at the source' would be a full-scale genocide, killing everybody of a threatening (ethnical, religious, etc) group, their relatives, the relatives of relatives, their friends, relatives of their friends....

This is an absurd statement. It is quite possible to find, pinpoint, and kill terrorists and it would be even easier if we our intelligence services had not been neutered in the 1990s. It will take some time to build up our own Arabic speaking agents as well making greater inroads into Arabic terrorist networks (including having to deal with some unsavory characters).

Besides killing and arresting present terrorists, we do need to address some of the root causes of terrorism. Some of them, I think, are the same causes that you probably see -- but many of them, I would argue, are quite different than what many would assume. But to think that we will somehow persuade current terrorists to stop blowing things up is dangerously irresponsible.

By the way Peeteriz, what is your solution?

Re:What will the EU do?

[stormcoder]

Most of the terrorists in Iraq are not Iraqi's. So the people who are being pressed, as you call it, are not becoming terrorists. If your hypothesis about pressure and desperation making terrorists were valid, then why were there not a shit load of them during Saddam's reign. You can't get more oppressed than that. If you look at a typical terrorist, they are middle and upper class. A suicide bomber is not a terrorist, by the way. They are a slow cruise missile.

Re:Terrible.

[stwrtpj]

In any case, we should bomb Mecca every time something like this happens.

Yeah, making hundreds or even thousands of new martyrs for the cause will really stop terrorism. Keep those brilliant ideas coming, please.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Ed Avis]

Do terrorist deserve the same rights as free citizens of these countries they attack?

Usually, terrorists _are_ free citizens of the country they attack. 9/11 was an exception.

wikipedia's on it...

[jasongetsdown]

According to the wikipedia article already being developed on the topic there are three fatalities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_London_transport _explosions

The War on English

[danharan]

Six Bomb Blasts Around Central London

Is a "Six Bomb" a new time of bomb those evil terrorists invented?

Empty White House

[Anonymous Coward]

All extremists should be taken out and shot

And once that's done, convert the now-empty White House into a wine bar?

Re:What will the EU do?

[Qzukk]

I'm sure you enjoy bitterly denouncing a government that won't try to have you done in for speaking your mind.

You haven't been watching the news much. What with Bush and DeLay demanding that they be given the right to be the final arbiter of life and death in this country with the power to hold back the Grim Reaper himself, plus many Senators and Representatives condemning any public figure that dares speak out against the war on terror (One senator from Alabama called for treason charges against Bill Maher), I don't think it will be much longer before the "secret kangaroo^Wtrials" called for by the anti-terrorism laws begin, and they'll probably all be capital cases.

Re:Fucking Animals

[NeedleSurfer]

To make you feel bad about something you say in a twisted way is the hallmark of the republicans and right wing US extremist, don't fall in.

They wish to make intelligent people feel bad about their comment, to twist the logic of a sentence so it look like the person don't care about something or encourage something else, when a US public figure question a US actions they tell him he hates his country, like if you loved it you would never question it or disagree with its president, its twisted but that is exactly what they imply and say, but by telling you you hate your country you are now defending yourself instead of explaining your point and it become a personnality war, this way they might shut them up or encourage dimwitted followers to do it.

You HAVE to politicize something like that, like you said its the nature of terrorism to be political, but to address the problem up front will solve it. You don't solve these problem by amplifying them US style.

Yes - 3 tubes and 1 bus

[ColourlessGreenIdeas]

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.

Re:Yes - 3 tubes and 1 bus

[CanadianBoy]

The Canadian Broadcasting Corperation has a map with their story here: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/07/07/ london-subway050707.html .

Re:Welcome to the 21st century...

[meringuoid]

How can anyone, anywhere, ever feel safe again?

Because you're still more likely to die crossing the road.

They've killed probably a few dozen people. The death toll will rise as they clear out the mess in the Underground, but I doubt it'll get up above a hundred.

Frankly - and perhaps rather callously - we can afford to lose a hundred people to terrorists every few years. It's completely insignificant compared to the whole population - the only difference here is that it's spectacular and newsworthy. Not feeling safe? You survived the Cold War, didn't you? Managed to live with the ever-present threat of nuclear annihilation, but can't cope with the terrorists?

Call this war? In war people die in numbers like this every day. London has taken far worse than this in the past. You bury the dead, hunt down the killers and get on with life.

Mod Parent Up

[GypC]

Excellent post.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Peeteriz]

Treat them as any other crazed maniac mass-murderer.
Treat them as a sect of mass-murderers (See Tokyo poison-gas attacks).
Find and imprison the guilty ones.

Don't try to punish the innocent people that once lived in the same city as the murderers.
Don't try to punish ethnic or religious groups.
If some groups hate you, avoid creating situations when they have nothing to lose.

Re:What will the EU do?

[NineNine]

The best method to rid the world of these insane fanatics is to kill them at the source.

How about just outlawing something as arcane, ignorant, and hateful as religion? Religion's at the heart of almost all violence these days (note that George Bush is an Evangelical Born Again Christian, thus the slaughter in the Middle East).

Re:Fucking Animals

[squiggleslash]

Let this be a lesson for Londoners and the rest of the world that terrorism can strike anywhere, and appeasing them will only make them stronger.

You want to explain this one to me? In what way have Londoners been appeasing any of the terrorists likely to have been involved in today's attack?

Peace and Security

[under_score]

The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. (Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 286)

The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity. This is the straight Path, the fixed and immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure. (Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 214)

There is hope, but there is also no easy solution. Peace doesn't just happen. It requires a fundamental change in people's perception: a recognition of the unity of humanity. I see that slowly happening. Partly through the positive forces of education, the debatable forces of globalization, and the tragedies of war, terrorism, poverty and environmental degredation. We'll get there, I have no doubt, but at what cost?

Re:Peace and Security

[hesiod]

> We'll get there, I have no doubt, but at what cost?

The cost is X-1 lives, where X is the human population of the planet. OK, maybe X-10 or so, if they are spread out.

Perhaps I'm a bit (extremely) cynical, but conflict will always exist in some form, and the easier one has it, the easier it is to get worked up about extremely minor things.

Re:This is indeed an act of war.

[rsbroad]

This is indeed an act of war.

And the United Kingdom must, and certainly will, respond to it.

The US response was to invade Afganistan and prevent Afganistan from being a threat.
The US response was to invade Iraq, and prevent Iraq from being a threat.
These were sucessful actions.

These targets were not precise. But they were arguably well chosen.

The next target will face the attention of a larger coalition of civilized countries, including Russia.

----
It is possible to find fanatics anywhere.
Here in the US, someone has not too long ago set fire to new automobiles in order to protest air pollution.
I, of course, believe that these people just like starting fires.

If it were wanted, the US could recruit many suicide bombers. That is not civilized, and is not likely to happen.

The wealthy fanatics that finance these atrocities enjoy blowing things and people up. They themselves are not dying in suicide attacks.
Like Saddam Hussien, they imagine themselves to be invulnerable.

It is apparant to all that the wealthy fanatics must be shown that they are not invulnerable.

Re:First Post

[ajs318]

You do know that SKY is the UK end of the FOX network, right?

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[lenart]

Following up on your reasoning violence towards moslims in europe is also bound to happen. Moslim terrorists cannot keep on doning this thinking that the general public is going to take it forever. At one point being moslim in europe will become dangerous. The extreem interpretation of the moslim faith is to blame. I have not read the Koran but I think I heard somewhere that the part "thou shall not kill" is in there somewhere. But every extreem moslim terrorist seems to think that this rule does not apply to them. Just because they have found some subrule that seems to justify killing if it is for the moslim faith. I do not believe that God, Allah or Budha or whatever god you believe in condones these kind of actions.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[AntoniusBloc]

Yes, and that girl who dressed provacatively was just asking to be raped.

Iraq is not a fertile breeding ground for terrorists. Terrorists are coming into Iraq from other countries. They are not coming out.

Germany never did anything to the US before we went to war against them in WWII. Was it wrong for us to attack them?

Re:Response from London locals...

[kylegordon]

Yeah, a lot of people would panic as well. Unfortunately though, we (Britain) have had to put up with terrorism for over 30 years. It gets bred into you after a while :-)

Re:Terrible.

[geoffrobinson]

Yes. It's the historical record.

Osama himself said the pullout from Mogidishu greatly affected his strategy.

Re:Only two dead so far...

[Insipid Trunculance]

Sky is reporting 45 dead and the figure is expected to Rise.

Boom

[DrLex]

Why don't all those (fill in favourite insult(s) here) terrorists just put themselves in a large bus and blow themselves up. Ah wait, then they wouldn't kill any innocent people, which for some reason seems to be their ultimate goal somehow...

Re:Very Sad

[stwrtpj]

Dont you /. fuckers realize this isnt some joke, and you arent in your shitty MMORPGs? Get a life and mourn like the rest of us dont make comments like that

You're new here, aren't you?

You're an embarrassment to your country.

[James A. D. Joyce]

Stop being such a fucking pussy. I think it's funny, you think it's not. Fine, difference of opinion, whatever. But stop trying to pretend that you somehow have the moral high ground just because you think it's not funny. Oh, and learn the meaning of the word "racism", too.

Re:You're an embarrassment to your country.

[Hogwash McFly]

Please do yourself a favour and stop posting, it's plain embarrassing.

Furthermore, stop referencing concepts like 'racism', 'sexism' or any other 'ism' because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

I know you are French and are thus the target of the original joke (and many others) but just fucking laugh it off and take it on the chin like a man. It's not that you are appalled about laughing at death, it's because you are French and don't like the (obviously joking) accusation.

People, and probably yourself, laugh at death all the time. It's the subject of a large amount of humour and unavoidable. Just because this is a terrorist attack it doesn't magically elevate the deaths to another level of tragedy. People joke at funerals about the deceased all the time, are you suggesting that these people are despicable?

James AD Joyce, who will be added to my friends list, is correct - you are an embarrassment to your country. The French have it bad enough without people like you masking knee-jerk nationalism with thinly veiled moral 'highhorsing'.

Re:You're an embarrassment to your country.

[Catbeller]

I was watching the "Daily Show" with John Stewart last night.

He showed a clip of Bush being asked by a reporter about the increased level of violent attacks in Iraq.

Bush smiled and started chuckling. Laughing. In the reporters face. In all our faces.

Death is so funny. Reporters are so funny when they ask about your war and the death you cause.

Yell at the insane man in the White House.

Re:You're an embarrassment to your country.

[Opie812]

I know you are French and are thus the target of the original joke (and many others) but just fucking laugh it off and take it on the chin like a man. It's not that you are appalled about laughing at death, it's because you are French and don't like the (obviously joking) accusation.

The French have it bad enough without people like you masking knee-jerk nationalism with thinly veiled moral 'highhorsing'.

I enjoy a good "France are a bunch of cowards" joke as much as the next guy, but I feel compelled to state the guy you responded to isn't France-french. He's even worse! You see, although the entire world has at least *some* contempt for France, they - yes even France - holds Quebec Frenchies in disdain. How bad is when even the laughing stock of the world thinks you're a bunch of ninnies.

Unfortunately, my country has to put up with an entire province full of people like this. My sincerist apologies to the world for the likes of this guy, Celine Dion, and a whole list of others whom we couldn't keep within the borders of their fascist province.

Re:You're an embarrassment to your country.

[PhoenixPath]

Aagh!! You said Celine! Now I'm going to have THAT song in my head the rest of that! You insensitive Clod!

Re:You're an embarrassment to your country.

[Placido]

>> DYING AINT FUNNY AT ALL MORON!

I dunno dude. Name me one person who isn't going to die. What better way to deal with such an absolute than humour?

Re:You're an embarrassment to your country.

[erosannin]

For Pete's sake, the man is (like many of us) SICK and TIRED of reporters manhandling these "interviews" into antiwar statements. REPORTER: "Do you feel sorry that you fail at life, war, and everything such?" BUSH: "WTF?" He should have laughed ... its silly, you laugh at silly things.

Re:You're an embarrassment to your country.

[Opie812]

shhhh...I'm trying to make a point.

Re:You're an embarrassment to your country.

[Bozzio]

Please!

He's not French, he's French Canadian.

I am French (from France), and I understand that sour comments have to be taken with humour. I also understand sometimes people post on /. to anger others. And I also understand that often times you only hear from idiots online and not from reasonable people (who have better things to do that post on /. every 15 minutes).

I am also French Canadian (not from Quebec, but from New-Brunswick).

This guy is an embarassement! I'd rather not have him associated with France as the country already seems to be held in very low esteem in the U.S.

Re:You're an embarrassment to your country.

[aneurysm36]

you could have picked a better example...
http://oldamericancentury.org/Bushs_Big_Joke.wmv

Re:You're an embarrassment to your country.

[chris_mahan]

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.

Re:You're an embarrassment to your country.

[Darby]

Unfortunately, my country has to put up with an entire province full of people like this. My sincerist apologies to the world for the likes of this guy, Celine Dion, and a whole list of others whom we couldn't keep within the borders of their fascist province.

Look, I appreciate your comment, and you do get credit for William Shatner as well, but I think we're also going to need a personal apology for Alanis Morrisette.

Re:You're an embarrassment to your country.

[Rakarra]

Jesus. Reporters in this country throw softballs at the president and have for well over a decade now. That was nothing.

Re:You're an embarrassment to your country.

[ThaReetLad]

now that's funny.

Re:You're an embarrassment to your country.

[riiiichanchan]

hey hogwash your a Goddamned psycho, time to take a look in the mirror son, and yes a terrorist attack "magically elevates the deaths to another level of tragedy", because these deaths were deaths of the innocent, innocent who died for no other reason then a bunch of mentally diseased hateful people who do not believe in the civilized and common humanity of man. These deaths are worse then deaths by criminals because they attempt to affect the spirit of an entire peace-loving people, not just an unintended consequence of civilian death in a war or petty crime. So yes these 'deaths' are more meaninful, thus more tragic then other deaths, it wasn't us who raised them to the level of national tragedy, they did that, get your senses back together nutjob

Re:You're an embarrassment to your country.

[Popcorn Dave]

With the 35 hour work week would it only have been 6 months late? :)

Re:THE AMERICANS DID IT

[Gotung]

The Anonymous Coward title has never been more appropriate on Slashdot. You sir, are an idiot.

Re:Terrible.

[koi88]

I sincerely hope you never have to worry about your family in an attack like this.

I do not agree with grandparent, but I would like to add that I also hope none of us ever has to worry about their family in an attack like America's attack on Iraq.
The slaughtered Iraquis didn't deserve being killed.

That doesn't make any sense.

[cgenman]

It would be great if we could turn around and attack 'the terrorists.' But who are the terrorists? In 9/11, most of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian, a government that is supposedly a friend of western nations. In France, the attackers were French. We could attempt to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Qatar, Yemen, Oman, Cyprus, and Lebanon, but we'd still be left with North Korea, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Russia, China, and Montana. And that wouldn't get to the root of the problem, which is that people hate the actions of our governments so much that they are willing to die to make a point. It wouldn't crush the malcontentment.

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:That doesn't make any sense.

[wikdwarlock]

We must REALLY hate Yemen. They get attacked twice?

Re:That doesn't make any sense.

[morgajel]

My favorite part is when people think killing any group of people will destroy a method/idea.

You CANNOT WIN A WAR ON TERRORISM.
Duh.

I feel sorry for the people who can't grok that.

Re:That doesn't make any sense.

[linzeal]

Saudi Arabia is a monstrous backwards country where it prides itself on being the only one where women are not allowed to drive and can still be killed by their fathers for lack of respect. Bomb Saudi Arabia next and liberate the women, I say.

Re:That doesn't make any sense.

[Superfreaker]

You CANNOT WIN A WAR ON TERRORISM.

Why not? We're winning the War on Drugs! ;)

Re:That doesn't make any sense.

[internic]

BBC's current death toll for the bombing is 37. England has a population of 49 million, according to Wikipedia. At the homocide rate you quoted, that would imply 686 homocides per year in the country. It would seem, then, that the bombing doesn't even come close. Now, perhaps you meant something else, but even London's population is about 7 million, so that'd be about 99, which is still more than the bombing.

In addition, I think that the gradparent's point stands even better if you don't consider homocide (a relatively unlikely way to go in the UK) and consider all other possible ways one could die. The point is that statistically, terrorism (even at this level) is likely a very small contributor to your mortality rate. I don't think that's really something to think too much about today, as these events are tragic and horrible either way, but it is something to consider rationally in the future when deciding how to deal with the issue.

Re:That doesn't make any sense.

[rkww]

You're still thousands of times more likely to die from normal homocide than you are from terrorism.

Thousands? In 2000/2001 there were 189 homicides in London. Today 39 or more people died 'from terrorism'.

Re:That doesn't make any sense.

[cgenman]

This is not a problem with London. This is a risk of living in the western world, be it New York, Paris, London, or Omaha Nebraska. Compounded over time, the statistic becomes very clear. While dying from terrorism is terrible, it's just about the least of your worries.

Even just considering the UK, 2003 saw 530,000 deaths, or one death every minute of every day. Heart disease killed 200,000 of those people. 5,000 people died from infections and parasites. 3,000 people died in transport accidents. Falling killed 2,000. 100 people froze to death. 8 people died from syphilis.

Again those statistics are just the UK, and just for one year. But it's pretty clear that the biggest killer in the UK is still not Al Quaeda, but Mc Donalds, by a pretty wide margin.

Again, I don't mean to reduce the tragedy felt by the people in London. But death is a tragedy to people no matter how it occured.

Re:Very Sad

[baadger]

Do you know anybody who has actually been hurt or killed in these attacks? You come across very upset.

If not, I would like to know how you plan to mourn for people you have never met. I'd leave that to the relatives and friends of those effected directly. Feelings of empathy should be directed toward those rather than at the general public where it does no or little good.

The reaction caused by the vulturous media and outbursts of false mourning and melodrama is exactly what terrorists gloat over.

As for the humourous snipes here on Slashdot... there are certain ironies of this attack which unclowded by the horrors of the event can be seen as quite amusing.

Forgive me if this post seems heartless but unless you're going to do something constructive in reaction to these terrible events why bother wasting emotion on the Slashdot crowd?

Re:Terrible.

[danharan]

In the larger scheme of things, the Plame story might have more impact.

Anyone with half a clue expected another terrorist attack. Markets may adjust after a period of irrationality- it didn't take that terribly long after 9/11. Since the UK has been used to terrorism, they may get over this even faster.

However what are the consequences of Karl's outing of Plame now being public knowledge? How will this affect relations with the intelligence community?

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[rbarreira]

Hey the suicide and IED bombing in Iraq I can see as military action, blowing up a train full of people who likely oppose the war is proof that there is nothing you can do to satisify these people.

So you think that's an appropriate excuse for NOT doing anything (in fact, quite the opposite) to prevent the rage of other people?

Re:you miss one!

[GypC]

Bring it, coward.

Re:Fucking Animals

[MynockGuano]

Right; he probably forgot about the friendly community IRA training grounds that we allow here.

Three choices --- little bit afraid

[alarch]

I am not afraid of such attacks but their consequences. Well, there are 3 solutions: 1) remove the cause of terrorism (whatever it is) 2) live in constant dager of such attacks 3) remove our freedoms, human rights, create safe, police states.. I am somewhat afraid our governments will choose the number 3.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[jcr]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall that muslim extremists hated the US and Britain sometime before the invasion of Iraq?

It's kind of hard to put your finger on an exact date, but it pretty much started with Arafat's hijackings in the late 1960's. Arafat wasn't an islamic fundamentalist, though. He was more of a soviet proxy, with a few of his own peculiar twists on socialism. He was one of the great innovators of kleptocracy, managing to loot about a billion dollars from the Palestinian refugees over his career. Most kleptocrats need a country to get started.

Islamic fundamentalist terrorism against the USA started in Iran in 1979, when a pack of "students" mobbed the US Embassy. The failure of the USA to declare war on Iran immediately is chiefly to blame for the Tehran Vaudeville Show that's been going on ever since.

As for calling them idiots, that's probably fair. I really think that the Al Queda crowd have no idea what they're doing. Now that they're kidnapping Arab diplomats, and trying to put a hit out on Musharraf, they're going to run out of safe hiding places.

What they really don't understand is what kind of hell they can bring down if they manage to fully provoke the USA. Make no mistake, if the USA fully commits to war, the crusades will look like a picnic. Anyone trying to perform the Hajj for the next century or so will need treatment for radiation sickness.

-jcr

Explain to me...

[gillbates]

How invading Iraq was supposed to stop the terrorists in London, or any other country, for that matter.

Granted, I understand Bush says he's against terrorism. But how did invading Iraq make the world safer from terrorism when the bombings are occuring in Spain and the UK?

It seems to me that invading countries only further helps the cause of terrorism by providing the enemy with propaganda to further their cause. Perhaps our efforts would be better spent actually listening to, and working with the Muslim world to turn them against their terrorist brethren. The "we must invade your country because of terrorism" policy doesn't seem to be working.

Re:Explain to me...

[nagora]

Granted, I understand Bush says he's against terrorism.

He also says he's a Christian, so I don't think there's much point in listening to what he says rather than watching what he does.

TWW

Re:Explain to me...

[orion41us]

It was never supposed to stop terrorists in London, but you miss the point, the idea is that if you remove fundamentalism, dictatorships, and spread democracy you will eventually dry out the beds that breed terrorism... Remember terrorism is not any particular belief - it is a symptom. It's about freeing peoples minds, which will take years. But mayhap in 2 generations, our efforts will pay off.

Re:Terrible.

[JavaLord]

The capital of Saudi Arabia is Riyadh. All you're proposing is the random killing of random Muslism, who may or may not be Saudi (or even Arab), considering Mecca's status as a pilgrimage destination. Way to take the high road there.

How many world wars has the 'high road' won?

Re:I hope everyone here understands...

[Ulven]

I'm waiting for that to be trotted out by the government or some papers.

But how will they identify the dead?

[lorcha]

It certainly won't be from their dental records. You gotta have dentists in order to have dental records.

Medic A: "I've got one guy here with rotten, crooked teeth."
Medic B: "You've just described the entire male population of Britain."

Then what?

[QMO]

If fighting terrorism triggers terrorism, how do you stop it?
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.)

Re:Then what?

[Marillion]

The one thing a terrorist, or school bully, can't stand is to be ignored.

Re:Then what?

[Pep Strebek]

It's called police actions, covert operations, infiltration and intelligence gathering. These would be the most effective strategies. The problem is nobody sees covert actions so you can't demonstrate that you are being proactive. Only a 24 hour a day, imbedded news journalist war gets the public's attention and makes them feel good that you are "doing something" to "fight Terror".

Re:Then what?

[Bedouin X]

WWJD?

Re:Then what?

[tomjen]

Then the war on terror is lost, along with our world as we know it.

You have to forget it, atleast not be angered over it. Anger lead to violence and we know where that ends.

Re:Then what?

[1010011010]

Who Wants Jack Daniels, indeed!

*raises hand*

Re:Then what?

[Anonymous Coward]

If fighting terrorism triggers terrorism, how do you stop it?

Well, the best way is to remove its causes. People generally become terrorists because they are upset about something. Pretty much anything done involving Israel is a cause of tension. The US's general arrogance in foreign policy has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and some of them are trying to get back at us. Now, you can't make everybody happy, so this only goes so far. In some places (Israel/Palestine), there is no good answer, so anything we do is automatically bad. But, we could do far more to avoid pissing off everyone we come in contact with.

As someone said, you don't fight terrorists with a conventional army. You don't have to take over a country and deal with millions of people who don't want you there just to kill a few hundred terrorists. You move in quietly, kill them, and leave. Or go with our usual cruise missile attacks.

The reality is, though, that terrorism isn't going away. Even President Bush admitted that (before changing his mind). We can't keep them out of the country, either, it's just too big. Our attempts to prevent terrorism simply take little freedoms from 280 million people to try to find the 10 that are working on the next 9/11.

For those who say that it must be working, because there hasn't been a repeat of 9/11, keep dreaming. Before 9/11 we had Oklahoma City (done by a white American, who we aren't worrying about right now). Before that was the World Trade Center bombing. That's only 2 outside attacks on US soil in 20 years. If we can prevent a repeat for the next 15 years, then you have something to back up that claim.

Whether Iraq and Afganistan are 'good wars' or not is an entirely different question. There are reasons to go there, and reasons not to. Fighting terrorists is pretty low on the list, though, because it's just not the most effective way to do it. Long term it might help, because if the people of those countries become free and happy they won't be as pissed off at us anymore (see par. 1). The press (and the government press people) aren't helping, because we only hear about the horrors of war, we never hear about the people of those countries being better off for our invasion.

Re:Then what?

[Atzanteol]

Perhaps both are being done? Making the public "feel good" is definitely important when it comes to terrorism. And as you point out there really is no way to know if there are any 'covert' operations going on. I'd be surprised if there were none.

Re:Then what?

[Thomas Miconi]

If fighting terrorism triggers terrorism, how do you stop it?

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:Then what?

[Pep Strebek]

"Making the public "feel good" is definitely important when it comes to terrorism"

OK, covert operations, intelligence gathering, etc..., are good, we all agree. Are you saying it's justified that we also start a very visible war (in this case in Iraq), with all of the death and destruction that entails (both against combatants and civilians), in order to make the public "feel better"?

I hope that's not what you're saying because that is cynical in the extreme.

Re:Then what?

[Atzanteol]

Are you saying it's justified that we also start a very visible war (in this case in Iraq), with all of the death and destruction that entails (both against combatants and civilians), in order to make the public "feel better"?

I think you have a limited view on the war if that's all you can see. I think that we've been trying the covert stuff for a *long* time and it's been limited in effectiveness. I think adding in the 'visible' war is a change in tactics. We've now elevated the private behind-doors world of international terrorism to the fore-front of politics. What once was personal is now political.

I believe the idea of attacking Iraq is to get the leadership of terrorist sympathetic nations to think twice. "Shake up the bee hive" so to speak.

But now that I've carefully avoided your question... No. I don't think war "just to make people feel better" is necessarily justified. But I don't think that's all it's done.

Re:Then what?

[Pep Strebek]

I agree that the "visible" war is sometimes necessary in addition to the behind the scenes actions. This was the case with the war in Afghanistan. Given the facts, it was a visible and sensible response to what had happened. It let countries know that if you harbor terrorists then you may become a target as well.

I don't agree that attacking Iraq was in any way sensible or justified (certainly not in the context of the "War on Terror"). It seems to me that in that particular case the visibility of the target country was more important than the ultimate goal.

That being said, it sounds like we're quickly moving away from the original argument/discussion.

Re:Then what?

[HuguesT]

You fight terrorists with the Law.

You treat terrorists as criminals. You hunt masterminds with Interpol. You capture them, and give them a fair trial.

It worked with Libia and the Lockerbie disaster, which before 9/11 was the worst act of terrorism perpetrated on americans (nearly 200 died).

Note that Libia and colonel Khadafi have renounced terrorism and appear to be genuine so far.

It worked very well with IRA terrorism in Ireland and England. Note that the IRA hasn't been detonating bombs in a long time.

You have to be prepared to be patient and persistent. You don't have to bomb or invade anybody.

Re:Then what?

[UltraAyla]

exactly - invading already impoverished nations just increases resentment for the United States, and it is generally desperate people who commit acts of terrorism

The whole world would not hate us if we just gave them some food - that in itself would likely minimize the amount of terrorism - you'll always have a few wackos out there with a gun, but if you're ACTUALLY helping the rest of the world, they won't miss the wackos if you "make war" with them

Re:Then what?

[FhnuZoag]

Throughout history, terrorist and guerilla groups have only been beaten in two ways.

One is to stick their entire parent population - be it the Jews, the Boers or whatever - in concentration camps. Annihilate their will to fight. Make them subservient, and write fear into their psyche.

The other is to work around them. Undermine their hold on their populations, until the groups become themselves irrelevant, and fade away.

Take your pick.

Re:Then what?

[Ced_Ex]

You could probably substitute Christians/Catholics or any other religion in place of Muslims and your entire comment would still make sense.

That's the unfortunate thing about religion, it never seems to teach acceptance of OTHER religions.

Re:Then what?

[adrianmonk]

You fight terrorists with the Law. You treat terrorists as criminals. You hunt masterminds with Interpol. You capture them, and give them a fair trial. It worked with Libia and the Lockerbie disaster [google.com], which before 9/11 was the worst act of terrorism perpetrated on americans (nearly 200 died). Note that Libia and colonel Khadafi have renounced terrorism and appear to be genuine so far.

I'm not saying I disagree with your point of view, but is this really the best example? Didn't the US send some missiles to knock out a few building in Khadafi's compound and in the process wind up killing one or two of his children? Isn't it possible that that is part of the reason Khadafi has changed his tune?

I'm not saying anything either way about the morality of firing missiles at his compound, but it does seem like that piece of information should be figured into the analysis of whether police and fair trials alone did the trick with Khadafi.

Re:Then what?

[Reverend528]

You fight terrorists with the Law.

So, you're saying that we can fight terrorism by making it illegal? Perhaps I should contact my congressman...

Re:Then what?

[HappyDrgn]

Invading an unrelated country and calling it 'war against terror'

terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. - Merrian-Webster

Iraq using chemical weapons on Kurds to *coerce* them does not qualify? The thought of nerve gas being used on people is pretty terrifying, no?

Re:Then what?

[DigiShaman]

If a hornets nest is in your neighbors yard, yet the swarm attacks you in yours, what do you do? If your neighbor wont or can't bring down the nest, then you have no other choice but to walk over to his backyard and take care of the issue your self.

Re:Then what?

[StarTux]

"Note that Libia and colonel Khadafi have renounced terrorism and appear to be genuine so far."

Its Libya, but they recounted it after all the events with Iraq and Afghanistan, its not good for a government to be associated with the "Taliban".

Need to treat every subject separately as the IRA were running out of support and after 30 years they had achieved nothing with their campaign of violence...Notice I said 30 years? We could be in this for the long haul...

Re:Then what?

[shmlco]

And said bullies can do an AMAZING amount of damage pounding your face to a pulp while everyone else stands around ignoring them.

The technique doesn't even work for ostriches...

Re:Then what?

[Hal_Porter]

Whoa there. The concentration camps in the Boer War and WWII were Not the same thing

Boer War style large scale internment is neither morally acceptable nor a particularly effective counter insurgency technique, but it's not on the same level as the Nazis.

Re:Then what?

[Curtman]

"I believe the idea of attacking Iraq is to get the leadership of terrorist sympathetic nations to think twice."

Wouldn't it make more sense to attack a nation that is known to be sympathetic to terrorists then? Attacking Iraq is terrorism, it fits the definition perfectly. The justification for this war had nothing to do with terrorism though. It was about fictional WMDs, remember?

Re:Then what?

[Abu Taleb]

Bush gave 5 reasons to attack Iraq, one was WMD - so dont make up rubbish. Iraq was not a sovereign state. Therefore, it is quite legitimate for the US and the Coalition of 88 countries to attack it. The Iraqi people simply had no sovereignty under Saddam. Now these same people are free to form their own government and have been awarded their human rights for the first time in their history. To say that 26 million Iraqis should remain in bondage because no WMDs were found, is so asinine. Only a fascist would even think like this.

Re:Then what?

[RhettLivingston]

These "terrorists" are well supported by a vastly larger system that refuses to police itself. If you kill every single one of them, even with zero injury to others in the system, more will simply rise to replace them. True change cannot occur without change in the system. Since the support system's basis of power is not hatred but a rational(ized) decision that those of us not in the system are infidels and do not have a right to live, that change will be difficult. The supposedly peaceful leadership of the support system must change. That can only occur with a mass rising of the silent majority that have been driven into the system by fear of its leaders. One step in that is to eliminate the worst leaders. Another is to force a political system into being that has the potential of providing protection from the religious system and is not terrorist itself. None of it is easy because the mythology put into place to protect the leadership is extensive and deeply ingrained. And for the same reason, it will be a long battle. Decades at least.

Also, Iraq is just a minor (though certainly related to the development and support of terrorists) piece in the problem. It is a beachhead in a battle that is a part of a vastly larger war that can have no end except the elimination of the philosophy that infidels shouldn't exist or an elimination of the infidels. Since ideas can never be eliminated in a population so large and we are rapidly reaching the technological point where even a single motivated idealist can end us all, as a devoted infidel who dislikes door #2, I sincerely hope the war never ends.

Re:Then what?

[Abu Taleb]

Iraq was not a sovereign country under Saddam. It was the duty of the civilized world to invade Iraq and bring its people human rights and freedoms. Racists, bigots, and bleeding heart moonbats dont seem to understand this, and feel that democracy is too good for Muslims and middle easterners. Well too bad, Muslims are also human and they deserve freedom just like you.

Re:Then what?

[Moocowsia]

Ever heard of the marshall plan? Kill communism with kindness. Same shit applies, kill extremism by getting rid of the shitty conditions that spawn it, not blow the shit out of anything that moves.

Re:Then what?

[DeputySpade]

I'm not sure why you throw McVeigh in with the rest of the terrorist activity we've seen lately. It doesn't fit the pattern. It was a singular event. The rest form a pattern of coordinated attacks by a specific group of people. You say that (other than McVeigh) there was only one attack in 20 years. Actually, there was:

• 1983 - Bombing of marine barracks in Beruit
• 1993 - The the first WTC attack
• 1998 - The bombing of 2 embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
• 2000 - The attack on the USS Cole
• 2001 - WTC/Pentagon

Since the "war on terror" (which is the dumbest sounding thing I've ever heard of, mind you) began in late 2001 there has been nothing. Not a sausage. Not so much as a firecracker on US soil. There has been one attack in Spain which caused those with less solid manbits to demand a pull-out and there has now been an attack in London. Hopefully the brits stick it out with another display of their famous tenacity. If they fold like a cheap tent the way the spaniards did, we're in for a rough ride.

Oh, and BTW, if you want to pin an increase in terrorism on a president's foriegn policy, check the timeline there. We got hit once under The Gipper and he took a lot of slack from the press for his military actions while in office, but we didn't get hit again. We got hit once under Bubba. His actions drew hardly a grumble from the press (aside from a few shrill conservatives) and we got hit several more times. We got hit once under W, and he's certainly taking his share of heat, but not a darned thing has happened since. It seems to me that a president's response to an incident of terrorism has an inverse relationship of success to criticism.

Re:Then what?

[Curtman]

Bush gave 5 reasons to attack Iraq, one was WMD

Which of the five was mentioned to the U.N.?

"Iraq was not a sovereign state. Therefore, it is quite legitimate for the US and the Coalition of 88 countries to attack it."

Iraq is not a U.S. state either. The U.S. has no jurisdiction there, and the people of Iraq have no say in the leadership of the U.S.. They should not be subject to terrorism by the U.S..

" The Iraqi people simply had no sovereignty under Saddam"

I think you are confused about what sovereignty means. Iraq was a sovereign nation, but now isn't.

"Now these same people are free to form their own government and have been awarded their human rights for the first time in their history."

No they aren't. They aren't even free to sit in their own homes without the fear of bombs falling on them.

"To say that 26 million Iraqis should remain in bondage because no WMDs were found, is so asinine."

No, to say that 26 million Iraqis should not be able to walk down the street and feel safe today and call it freedom is asinine.

"Only a fascist would even think like this"

I don't even know how you come to this conclusion. Fascist governments just love to impose their rules and beliefs on others. That is exactly what the U.S. is doing now.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[oolon]

I do have to admit I am starting to wonder if we in Europe are all to willing to give sancuary to extremists that don't like the (general) values of our country. They may are at risk at home why should it be our problem? People who are guests here (foreign nationals) who don't like are values perhaps should ask them to leave. If they cannot find somewhere else to go then they should be detained until they go, I would not want to send anyone to their deaths, but I don't see why we should provide open access to the country until people leave.

James

Re:The government lied to you?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

If they had said "OMG BOMBS EVERYWHERE HOLY SHIT RUN FOR YOUR FUCKING LIVES!" there would have been panic and people would have been trampeled by the people behind them.

Re:Fucking Animals

[tezza]

Escpecially where there are many many people here who do not and did not support the War.

Take Iraq as the example. Innocent people are killed in Iraq, and that is a tragedy. The military is very closed about justics for innocents as well, which is an outrage and a tragedy.

But inoccents are not targetted deliberately, and military justice is finally facing reform. Reform is propoese in the UK and Australia.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Peeteriz]

Find the terrorists - nowadays investigators are very capable.
Punish the terrorists as any other maniacal murderers.

Don't attempt to kill the terrorists by bombing the village where they grew up - that will get you nowhere.

Winning against terrorism means not caring about it on a political relationship level - it means dealing with murderous crime.
The terrorism deaths are insignificant when compared to car accidents or smoking-caused deaths - so spend the majority of funds there, not try to finance a huge war-machine that anyway doesn't achieve safety for your civilians.

Be patient, and don't go into a berserk mode, making rash decisions in anger that only hurt you in the long term.

Re:The government lied to you?

[tracker1972]

" Also be angry with a government that would lie to you about "power failures" until it was certain that it had things under control." Seeing as those were the initial suspicions of the London underground after one unexplained incident and rapidly this first assessment was changed as more "incidents" occurred I think you can remove your tinfoil hat on this one you prat. You really think that every media outlet, including other countries (you get loads of news channels on satellite) made Her Majesties Government their 1st port of call? Get a grip mate. Tracker.

Couldn't agree with you more.

[uprock_x]

Excellent post. And I think it's exactly how many feel.

Tommorow it will be business as usual really.

The truth is London is very used to terror attacks. Yes it terrible, especially if you are involved, but no more terrible than any other acts of terror from the past, or acts of violence going on across the world.

Would this put me off traveling on the tube and start sticking union jacks up everywhere and crying let's all be patriotic ? Um...no, not even close

I just really worry how Blair will try and use this for his own ends to manipulate the sheep out there, and how this could be used to fuel more discrimination and bullshit.

But for anyone with a grain of common sense, life goes on.

Re:Couldn't agree with you more.

[thaig]

You don't care because it doesn't suit your political outlook to do so and might suit someone elses, in other words.

You draw benefit from your society but don't see the need to offer even words of consideration back.

Regards,

Tim

Adama

[QMO]

"The opposite of war is not always peace. Sometimes the opposite of war is slavery"

Re:Adama

[Baorc]

There is also :

"Peace is only a prevailing form of chaos."

and for the prayer people :

It was something along the lines of "Instead of praying with your mouth, help with your hands."

I believe I actually saw this in one of the /. sigs. Feel free to correct me.

Re:Adama

[PurpleWizard]

Also ask what kind of peace. Is there peace because all the opposition have been crushed or peace because agreement was possible or peace because no one has any ammunition left and really can't face getting up and stabbing, throttling or kneck snapping etc. their "enemies".

Or is it just lunch time.

Re:Terrible.

[Anonymous Coward]

The efforts in Afghanistan have been somewhat successful and one reason is that most of the world supported that. Iraq is a completely different story. I have an Iraqi friend who was in favor of the war - he said that although the US will fuck up massively the country will be less fucked than it is with Saddam in power and the Iraqis can't get rid of him or his sons on their own so it's a price worth paying. The prison abuse scandal surprised my friend but he didn't think it made any permanent additional damage to the relations between the Arab world, however, the farce called elections has been worse than anything he (or any Iraqi he knows) could imagine in their worst nightmares. Read some other sources than just US media and you'll find out some interesting things - remember that even though the press is free in the US, the customers of the press are Americans and they don't want to hear bad things being said about the US...

When the focus finally was on development

[virve]

It just sickens me to think that this happens exactly when there was a summit that focused on development instead of terrorism. From its very nature, terrorism feeds on public attention.

Now these muslims (if that's what they are) are trying to steer the global agenda back to the issue of terrorism rather than a positive one of development and global environmental awareness.

--
virve

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[metlin]

What conservatives forget is that killing all the terrorists and invading country after country in the Middle East won't magically make the problem go away.

Hmm, that's why WWII ended because folks sat around tables discussing ways to solve the problems, right?

Oh wait, no.

History, you know, kinda has a habit of repeating itself.

Re:What will the EU do?

[LS]

Why does everyone ignore the fact that the west has massive political and military interference in the middle east which is why there is such hatred??? Yes, it's not because of genetic defect that these people hate you. The west is CONSTANTLY FUCKING with the middle east, whether it be propping up puppets, dictators and monarchies, selling arms to oppressive regimes, swindling oil revenue, supporting apartheid (YES, it is apartheid), or flat out military attack. These people have been living with bombs and poverty every day that are directly or indirectly a result of western policy and action. It happens once in a blue moon to a western country and then all of a sudden they should be exterminated? This is absurd to the extreme!

Re:Bliar cries crocodile tears

[vandan]

The British people did not lie to the world

Wrong. They sexed up reports. They then covered this up. Someone was killed over it, right?

the war was not an illegal war

Wrong. It was a war crime: an illegal war of aggression, entered on false pretenses ( see above point re: sexing up intelligence )

and to be quite frank most of the problems the developing countries have with the developed world come from the US

Not the US. Imperialism. And the UK knows all about imperialism. The fact that the US happens to be the biggest imperial power in no way precludes the UK from grabbing their piece of the spoils of war.

Incidently, you seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder so grow up.

Oh Bravo! I could say the same things about you.

Re:What will the EU do?

[jcr]

We picked a fight with Iraq because we were looking for WMD, which many of us knew to be a bullshit reason.

You may recall that Saddam was jerking the UN weapons inspectors around? He was bluffing, because he wanted his neighbors to belive he could roll over them again at any time. Too bad for him, that his bluff was convincing.

-jcr

Let's face it.

[James A. D. Joyce]

The parent poster is quite obviously a moron. He wants anyone who disagrees with his viewpoint to be killed. For a self-proclaimed patriot, it seems odd that he's forgotten about a little thing the USA was founded on called freedom of speech.

Re:Fucking Animals

[Bimo_Dude]

If you were less keen on wiping people out who disagree with you, there might be less people who disagreed with you.

Please don't generalize so broadly. Not all of the American people support this administration (or previous ones, for that matter). Most people I know here in the US are strongly opposed to the policies of this administration, and feel that they (Bush & Co.) in no way represent them (the peeps). If, in your statement, you were to replace the word "you" with "the US administration," then I would agree with you completely.

Stock market selling...

[gillbates]

As I write this, the markets have dipped only 3 percent. While the news media is trying to play this up as the result of terrorism, it's really not a considerable drop - it happens on a regular basis.

Me

[QMO]

I won the war on drugs.

I haven't used any.
I win.

I don't know whether you've won, are still fighting or have given up.
Good luck.

Re:Only two dead so far...

[nogginthenog]

A packed London bus at that. Because of the underground closures everyone was getting on the busses.

Re:Very Sad

[TheRaven64]

Not to mention the fact that jokes are one of the best retaliations possible against terrorism. Terrorism is, by definition, designed to inspire terror. The aim of the attacks today was not to kill people in London. It was not to disrupt the stock market. It was not to kick people off the mobile 'phone network. It was not to stop public transport working. It was to send a message. The message was this:

We can get you at any time. You are not safe. Be afraid.

By laughing at the tragedy, a clear and important message is sent back to the terrorists. That message is that we are not intimidated. People have died, and that is a tragedy. We will mourn for the dead. What we will not do is give in to terror. We will not permit them to intimidate us. We will not cower in fear, we will laugh at them. Laughter is programmed into the human brain as an antidote to fear, and it's an effective one.

I don't wish to diminish the pain of those who were injured, or who lost loved ones in any way. They have suffered, and nothing I or any of us do can change that. The only thing we can do is decide how we are going to allow this tragedy to affect us.

'Pressing more' works

[amightywind]

The more desparate you make the people in Iraq, the more recruits are easily available for terrorist groups.

Simply 'pressing more' doesn't achieve your goals of safety, it works against it.

The people of Iraq are being terrorized by a small number of Sunni Baathist "deadenders" and a larger number of radical Jihadis from all over the middle east. The insurgency does not draw heavily from the Iraqi populus. The insurgency is bad, in the short term, for the stability of Iraq. But good in the long term because all of the rats are in one trap. The Jihadis are being killed in droves every day. They can't have a meeting above ground for fear of being disintegrated by a 2000 pound bomb. 'Pressing more' has been entirely effective. Are you really suggesting that the Allies capitulate and leave the new Iraqi democracy to its fate? Do you really think that this will placate the Jihadis and keep them terrorising the west? Do you want to see new and more powerful Taliban regime in Iraq?

Re:'Pressing more' works

[Peeteriz]

"Do you want to see new and more powerful Taliban regime in Iraq?"
I don't.
That is why I think that the war was a mistake - that this war has facilicated such things, this decision has hurt USA and Europe.
The political choice to find an excuse for a war has put us into deep sh*t, costing our civilians live, and we can't even really pull out now without bad consequences. After we went in Iraq, I see absolutely no good way to pull out.
But we need to learn from our errors. Our governments need to acknowledge these errors - or they will repeat them, hurting us even more.

Re:'Pressing more' works

[wolfemi1]

The people of Iraq are being terrorized by a small number of Sunni Baathist "deadenders" and a larger number of radical Jihadis from all over the middle east.

What makes you think that? I believe (I read somewhere, can't dig up the link) that most of the insurgents are laid off factory workers and unemployed Iraqi citizens who lost their jobs because of the occupation.

What makes you think that the Iraqi people want us there? If there's a substantial number of Iraqi citizens actively fighting the occupation, how can you just write that off? Isn't that anti-democratic?

Yep.

[James A. D. Joyce]

After all, regardless of whether we care or not, they're still dead. We can't magically bring back from the dead the victims of these bombings by crying crocodile tears about them or using them as an excuse to start a phony war. Life isn't all sunshine and roses. The dead are dead; let's recognise that and move on.

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[N3WBI3]

So you think that's an appropriate excuse for NOT doing anything (in fact, quite the opposite) to prevent the rage of other people?

You cant prevent the rage of someone who thinks the world outisde of Islam is satan and that we all need to die. If the US pulled out of the middle east compleatly and did not give a dime to isreal that would stop terrorits attacks *for now* until something else came up that they did not like and would blame on us.

Re:This is indeed an act of war.

[de Bois-Guilbert]

Of course they must respond to it, that is hardly the issue. But *how*, that is another...

And as to the effectiveness of invading and occupying the countries perceived to fund and aid terrorists...

Sure, an attack on the scale of 9/11 took some serious planning and funding, but blowing up a bus and/or a subway train takes an elementary knowledge of chemistry, off-the-shelf products and a couple of bags to carry it all in. These people are already *everywhere*. They're not plotting the next attack in a cave in saudi-arabia, they're chatting over a cup of coffee in Venice, Copenhagen or Boston. Occupation of countries will, destruction of stuff and people aside, accomplish little else than to turn them into new little terrorist factories.

Find and punish those responsible, don't play their game by "promoting" them to "defenders of the faith" in the eyes of their countrymen.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Peeteriz]

Okay, if we are dealing with the organising ones, not suiciders, then yes, a lot of them aren't really oppressed themselves. But in recruiting middle and upper class students-anarchists to become terrorists, the mental image of oppression they see, of the group they are 'fighting for' is very important. This is where current situation in Iraq also is helping terrorists - these guys hear and see things that make them want to DO something NOW.
But the armed gangs in Iraq are a great training ground for potential recruits. Getting a guy who has fought for his family with Kalashnikov in hand against 'infidels' to do some 'wet' work is much easier than a normal person.

Re:Terrible.

[stinerman]

Anyone listed as a friend of mine would have to be joking about that.

Re:Terrible.

[Dh2000]

Agreed. Killing innocent people is perfectly justifiable in response to the killing of innocent people.

Now, we must stop at nothing to destroy all falafal stands located in the Western World [TM].

Once their network of tasty food services is disrupted, we'll only need to wait for them to starve.

Only then will we defeat the terrorists.

Just a normal day for Bhagdad....

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks to us.

this is the war our leaders chose to have. why do we act surprised when the people we are killing choose to fight back?

Re:Just a normal day for Bhagdad....

[amrust]

Not bloody likely.

You took me out of context. And apparently didn't read the whole post, before you went all

How do I cleverly twist his own words around to bash Americans without defining my own opinions... let's see..."Blow up"... "out of range"... HAHA yeah this will get 'em! (clicks Reply button)

You're not only missed MY point, but also the point in the BIG PICTURE, apparently. But boy, that was a funny response. Yep. {golf clap}

Re:What will the EU do?

[daigu]

How many people need to die who are not terrorists because BOTH WESTERN SOCIETY and ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS DO NOT CARE to learn to interact with others in ways that are non-violent and cooperative?

The problem is we have a negative reenforcing loop. Some people in Western society take your position - which is essentially let's kill people. Once people die, people in Islamic society see how friends and neighbors die as a result of Western actions - and ask themselves:

How many people need to die before we all recognize that THEY DON'T CARE. Just be glad it was only bombs [without depleted uranium in them that will keep killing us for centuries, this time].

The end result is more and more dead people and more authoritarian governments. The ability to drive authoritarianism is really why this loop exists in the first place. Government leaders in both societies - whether they are Western or Islamic - want more authoritatian governments. For them, dead people are just an unfortunate by-product that allows them to achieve their goal.

The solution is to stop being violent yourself first, try to engage people in dialogue to figure out what drives them to kill people, and take the appropriate steps to lessen these issues. This approach promotes understanding and results in far fewer dead people.

Unfortunately, the result of this approach would be a more informed public, less control and a more equitable distribution of resources - which is not what Western leaders want.

However, it will happen at some point - once the corpses pile high enough that people stop rushing to the violent approach since it doesn't seem to be solving the problem.

Re:Time for Reconsideration

[t_allardyce]

Ok so if there had been and children in those attacks would they have been related? People vote and turn up to protests against the war there's not much more you can do. The UK isn't bad, we don't take over countries and purposefully kill innocent people we gave all that up and if these people have any problem with British troops being in Iraq they should take it up with those troops or the people in charge of sending them.

I think the reality of the situation is that these people are the same sort of idiots who stone adulterers and denounce democracy because they want to be the ones in charge. They have no education, they have no 'good arguments' they just make it up and keep fuelling their anger and spouting the same old crap about the west. They're just angry angsty young men who really need to get laid. Why didn't they attack the G8? not that it would have been acceptable, but they are lazy and find it easier to punch below the belt.

Re:Fucking Animals

[tracker1972]

"The bombing of Iraq (im assuming you mean teh one by Clinton) was in responce to an assaniation attempt on an ex-president."

Is that supposed to be reasonable and proportional, someone attempted an assasination, bomb the country? And it is their fault it spirals out of control I guess.....

Tracker.

Re:Terrible.

[SeekerDarksteel]

Never said it made terrorism less likely to happen. But the fact is that people wanted to kill us before Iraq and that hasn't changed anything. You can't pin the blame for this attack on the invasion of Iraq. They would have wanted to, and did, kill westerners anyway.

Re:Help me out

[Jack Taylor]

Walk south. You'll be able to get a bus outside of zone 1.

What are you talking about?

[James A. D. Joyce]

"Just the right kind of attitude to keep the cycle of hatred going and going."

No, it isn't. If anything, the grandparent poster was apathetic. Apathy doesn't keep the cycle of hatred going. The thing that keeps the cycle of hatred going is blind rage. "HOW COULD THEY DO SUCH A THING???" If anything, apathy acts to help halt the cycle of hatred.

Re:Terrible.

[rbanffy]

This will cost billions upon billions of dollars, and the people that think that not enough is being done for the poor should understand that a huge amount of resources just evaporated in several clouds of smoke, courtesy of Islamist fundamentalist wack jobs

I, somehow, doubt that eradicating poverty or hampering international aid is in their priority list. For the leadership of AQ, just like any other extremist organization, the worse it gets for the people, the easier for them it is to recruit.

BTW, it also gets better for some governments, as it helps them demonstrate the threat terrorist pose. It's kind of a symbiotic relationship.

correction

[pocket heston]

four attacks - three on the tube and one on a bus.

Re:Terrible.

[Dh2000]

Yeah, the right-wingers sure did get upset at Clinton for trying to kill Osama.

Funny, that.

Re:What will the EU do?

[someonehasmyname]

Iraq was in violation of all sorts of Clinton-era UN resolutions.

Saddam was basically laughing at the UN, and he knew the UN wouldn't do anything.

I believe Bush saw an opportunity to "spin" the situation and finally get the UN involved, which still didn't work, because the UN are a bunch of bitches. So we went in to fix the UN violations, while looking for WMDs.

And I'm glad Bush lied to all the dumb people that didn't care about the UN violations. What is the sense of having the UN if they're just going to impose bullshit sanctions, and not enforce them?!

Re:What will the EU do?

[digidave]

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Go tell it to the family in Africa living on 15 cents a day.

You may think what you do because you somehow believe that the rest of the world is like the US, but truth be told there are many, many countries which simply don't have any jobs available that pay enough to even feed a worker's family. There is no infrastructure for entrepreneurs. There is almost no educational infrastructure. These people can't emigrate to another country and get a job because they have not the funds to do so nor the education to be successful if they did.

If we help them build that infrastructure then we give them the tools to help themselves.

Re:Sounds good to me.

[rsynnott]

"I am not a racialist, but, and zis is a big but..."

Edgware Road

[cd-w]

The bomb at Edgware Road Station is an anomaly. This area of London probably has the highest Arab population, and it is the furthest from the other blast scenes. If it was Islamic Terrorists (lets keep an open mind), then perhaps this one went off too early, or someone screwed up. If I were investigating, I would look at this one first.

Re:Edgware Road

[Phosphor3k]

Perhaps they were trying to teach the Traitorous dogs a lesson for colaborating with the infidels?

Re:you miss one!

[fuzzybunny]

Bring it, coward.

What, a napkin?

Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[iainl]

Having read the statement, I'd have to say there's a couple of problems.

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

[revscat]

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.

Fear is a means to an end. Bin Laden talked about using terror to incite governments to violent responses, leading to an escalating path of violence that he believes will ultimately end in a secular v. Muslim war where Islam, being backed by God, will of course triumph.

And my relatives wonder why I'm a Unitarian.

Londoners: My thoughts go out to you all. I hope the damage done turns out to be slight, and that your nation will respond in a way that more effectively damages Al Qaida.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[snolan]

Londoners: My thoughts go out to you all. I hope the damage done turns out to be slight, and that your nation will respond in a way that more effectively damages Al Qaida.

Bravo! I know there are exceptions, but as a general rule people who have something to lose do not risk losing it. One of the fundamental problems with these "terrorists" is that they feel they've got nothing to lose. How about engaging them in the world economy? How about actually listening to them? I am not talking about the people who have already committed terrorist acts, but their neighbors and relatives need to be talked to and engaged positively so they are not recruited into the same nightmare. Where is the Western Powers' pressure on the Saudi government to open up it's society and allow more participation in their own government? All this talk of "democratizing the middle east" is pure bull-hockey unless you address the countries with the worst problems.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[william_w_bush]

england's ability to get over a terrorist attack without 50 celebrities doing dozens of tributes, having everyone buy tons of flags, and spending 4 years in group media-therapy makes me feel less proud to be an american...

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

[iainl]

Now, you see that's exactly the political digression I was hoping to avoid.

Still, on the bright side, both armies were generally going for military targets.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[swillden]

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 are a bunch of amateurs

[Tom]

Now, you see that's exactly the political digression I was hoping to avoid.

Then you shouldn't have provoked it with such a statement.
To a random Afghan, the attack on his country and the destruction of his farm was no more or less justified than today's events to a random Londoner.

Still, on the bright side, both armies were generally going for military targets.

True, mostly.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[cashman73]

Everyone is just pissed off they've got several miles to walk home, because there's no public transport.

Oh, what I would do to be a cab driver in London today! Cha-Ching! :-)

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[jjeffrey]

Thank you - I think a lot of us brits feel that is exactly how we would want our reaction to be perceived. We aren't going to dignify this attack by letting this change us. We will clear up, and move on.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Oh, what I would do to be a cab driver in London today! Cha-Ching! :-)

Given that many of the streets became either gridlocked or completely inaccessible shortly after the first explosion this morning, I don't think your day would be quite as profitable as you think.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[CaffeineAddict2001]

We didn't either during the Oklahoma City Bombing, or the first WTC Bombing. I'm sure if england had a terrorist attack the scope of 9/11 they would. Would you be more proud to be an american if we went back to ignorning terrorism?

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[PeelBoy]

Seriously. Blow people up, I don't care. Just don't do it outside my FECKING window. I work nights and sleep days. You know how fecking hard it is to sleep with explosions and flying body parts going on right out side my window? Show some curtesy to those of us not being blown up please. Thanks.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[PeelBoy]

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

As a Texan I'd rather have another civil war to get rid of idiots like you than attack another country to "feel safe"

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[liloldme]

Where is the Western Powers' pressure on the Saudi government to open up it's society and allow more participation in their own government?

I think it is pretty safe to assume that as long as the western powers are reliant on oil, and the Saudis keep sitting on top of the largest reserve of it on earth, that pressure won't be applied with any more force than what the Saudi government wants to.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[Tom]

attacking Afghanistan was a reasonable thing to do.

Last I checked, you don't find and arrest people by bombing a 3rd world country into oblivion. You do it by search, not by bomb.

The Afghanistan war was very much not an attempt to capture someone, and it's no surprise it failed on that account.

The fact alone that the Pakistani border was respected during combat activities, even though it has been an open secret that the border region is a free travel zone for the jihad fighters and their supporters, should make it quite obvious that a country was attacked, not a bunch of outcasts.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[jjeffrey]

If they want us to change, they should talk to us. We will listen.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[Chris Burke]

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.

Pretty much the whole world agreed that invading Afghanistan was a reasonable response. We even brought most of them along -- hell, even Canada and France are there!

My only beef with the Afghanistan situation is that we're dropping the ball now.

And why are we dropping the ball? Because the Hunt for bin Laden got sidelined so that our government could focus on what they really vanted to do: invade Iraq. Now our troops are spread thin, and we're dependent on warlords to keep order, such as it is, in the areas we don't have the manpower to hold ourselves.

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.

Yes, but you'd have to read a history book to know that. Guess what Bush doesn't like doing? But I digress, because the part that pisses me off is that it didn't have to happen that way. Afghanistan was, against all odds, going pretty well. In a way it isn't surprising when you look at everything it had going for it.

First, we had a clear mandate to be there, which already made Afghanistan better than most of our foreign adventures of the previous thirty years. Second, the people there didn't already hate us, since we helped them against the USSR -- as opposed to Iraq, whose people remember the last time we promised to bring them freedom. Third, we actually took the conflict and our enemies seriously and thus the actual experts were allowed to make the decisions. Compare again with Iraq, where we (correctly) assumed the invasion would be a cakewalk and (incorrectly) assumed that the people would welcome invaders with open arms. We never thought Afghanistan would be easy, or that once our army was there it would be all roses and parades, and thus we were prepared. In Iraq we were not prepared at all, and the reason is entirely due to our civilian command and their ignorance and self-serving bullshit.

A lot of Americans may not want to admit it, but we have a lot to do to prove that we really are capable of bringing freedom and democracy. Afghanistan was the perfect opportunity, and it was actually going well.

Imagine a world in which we haven't invaded Iraq. All our resources are dedicated to Afghanistan. We are, despite all our critics expectations based on history, actually succeeding in our stated mission. Finally, the troops leave. Then Bush starts talking about the evils of Saddam Hussein, and how having already proven ourselves in Afghanistan we were ready to bring freedom to Iraq. Maybe the people would actually believe us then? Yes, it's a fantasy, but it's no more a fantasy than the official line we're given today. All because of bullshit. All because we can't be real about why the world is the way it is and why people do the things they do.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[iainl]

That's the big difference, though. We make at least a pretence, and most of the time a hell of a lot more than a pretence, that when civilians get killed its a horrible accident. We're there to take out the leadership, and will oppose any visible threat. We even come down like a ton of bricks on members of our own armed forces if they're judged to have made an egregiously bad call about what constitutes a threat.

These guys are deliberately hitting the civilians because any attempt on the military would just involve them being smeared across the front of a Challenger II.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[iainl]

I'm not saying they have a lack of respect for the dead and injured. God, my wife would have been on that bus had it been a couple of weeks ago instead.

What I'm saying is that after the initial shock, we calmed down, made sure what could be done to help was - it's a sheer fluke that the British Medical Association headquaters was next door, so the place was swarming in doctors in seconds - we thought about the practicalities of getting home, not sat around feeling panicky about who might be next.

As I said, we've had the IRA blow the UK up before, and Omagh was almost as bad as today. Long ago we learned to be vigilant about the dangers, without living our lives under the duvet just in case.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[thorkummer]

attacking Afghanistan was a reasonable thing to do

Actually the Americans should have gone to the international court, like Nigarcua did to defend themselves against United States sponsored terrorism in their country (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_S tates"> Nicaragua v. United States). Like Nicaragua they would have won. Unlike Nicaraguas victory the verdict in this case could have been upheld.

By the way, the assaults on Afagnistan and Iraq aren't wars in any proper sense of the word. These people had practically no defences. Slaughter is a more appropriate word. The military personnel in these countries were systematically slaugthered. You may think that's fair, but lets call it what it is: Slaughter.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[Suicyco]

How about the US just stops attacking countries over non-political criminal behavior? Panama, Libya, Iraq, Iran, etc. etc.

You can't stop crime with armies. 20 people blowing up a building does not constitute a national threat requiring WAR to settle.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[demachina]

"My only beef with the Afghanistan situation is that we're dropping the ball now."

Hate to break it to you but the problem started when the U.S. installed Karzai as a puppet to run the country for the U.S. He is an ex Conoco employee, which was a big plus to the oil men in the White House when they picked him. He is a total kiss up to the Bush administration. The U.S. spent liberally flying around the country in a helicopter, handing out money to tribal leaders to make sure he got elected. You can't really expect a puppet like Karzai to get tough and demand the U.S. fulfill its aid promises, or for example threaten to kick the U.S. out of Bagram for instance. If he got to tough with the U.S. they would see that he was replaced with a more compliant puppet. You see Afghanistan is EXACTLY like every puppet regime the U.S. has abused over the last century.

I think you would have to go further and say the U.S. completely botched the whole Afghan war, not juse the aftermath.

Instead of going in to Afghanistan fast and hard and smacking down the Taliban and Al Qaeda they sent in a few special forces and fought pretty much the entire ground war using unreliable proxy armies, mostly from warlords with decidely mixed, agendas and they mostly let the Taliban and Al Qaeda scatter. The warlords were both easily bribed and more converned about maintaining their private armies and growing the profits from their opium farms.

Instead of fighting an enemy that was somewhat centralized in Afghanistan they are now well scattered around the world, and many have returned to the tribal areas in Pakistan where they have as much of a haven as they did under the Taliban, since Pakistan wont let anyone near them there.

Why was Afghanistan botched so badly, because George had a fixation on Saddam and Iraq, and had issues with his daddy's unfinished business. So he redirected most of the forces he should have used to ruthless liquidate Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, into Iraq. As a result Al Qaeda is alive, well and going strong, and Iraq is a bloody mess, and a recruiting poster for Islamic revolution. It sends a really bad message when you are attacked as badly as the U.S. was on 9/11 and you let the people responsible get away and go hammer some guy that had nothing to do with it.

I know George is supposed to be a "war" president and he used to score his highest marks in the polls for fighting the war on "Terrorism", and thats how he got reelected, but if you really look at his record he completely botched both Afghanistan and Iraq, and Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are as strong as every, so I really don't know what is is he's done to deserve street cred for being tough on terrorism, other than maybe robbing people of their civil liberties, for example snatching people around the world and spiriting them off to be tortured, or locking American citizens up indefinitely with no due process.

Another interesting tidbit I saw this week, Uzbekistan and Kyrgistan I think, backed by Russia and China are telling the U.S. to get the hell out of the bases they loaned to the U.S. to invade Afghanistan. It turns out the U.S. has been using the bases to incite the overthrow of the respective governments, Uzbekistan in particular, which has had some violent internal strife recently. They are oppresive dictatorships to be sure, but its kind of a case study in how to piss off people, or maybe piss on people, when a country helps you out with a military base to avenge 9/11, you let Bin Laden get away and then you focus your energy on trying and overthrow the government that loaned the base to you instead of on Al Qaeda.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[australopith]

Yeah, but the English have long memories. Remember Guy Fawkes . We still burn him in effigy every year - even out here in the colonies

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[Tom]

We make at least a pretence,

Yes, however the terrorists do that as well, just a different kind of pretence. Yours is "it was an accident" (even when it is quite obvious that it wasn't, it was calculated collateral damage).
The terrorists do the same, except that their argument is "it's for a greater good" and they make it clear that the collateral damage has been calculated and accepted.

These guys are deliberately hitting the civilians because any attempt on the military would just involve them being smeared across the front of a Challenger II.

Yes, and when the balance of power is so badly alligned against you, there's only two choices you have - give up or do the freedom fighter aka terrorist style.
I don't think these people enjoy being terrorists, it's simply that in their situation that's the rational thing to do, if you've already decided that giving up is not an option.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[Zilquis]

LOL, wish i had mod points for you

no public transport running

[RMH101]

you're walking, i'm afraid. current advice is to stay put, but if i were you i'd be tempted to get indoors, maybe find a pub to sit in for the afternoon and have a stiff drink...

Today was not a good day to get the wrong train.

[SilentMobius]

I work in Henley-on-Thames, but I was more than a little sleepy getting the train this morning and ended up on a non-stop to Paddington. I hit the station at about 9:00, looking at the Wikipedia article it looks like people were about 10 mins into the attacks.

Thankfully the trains had not yet been stopped and I hopped onto an outbound slow train.

I offer my condolences to those hurt or killed in this attack. However I for one will not change my anti-war viewpoint nor give in to any vengeful feelings that will simply exacerbate the problems.

It may take generations to breed the hate out of the middle east. But even that cannot happen if we perpetuate the hate.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Gulthek]

I'm not military, so I'd rather not fight them. If I *am* fighting them that means that I've been drafted. If I've been drafted then the country and the military are in a tough spot. If the military is in a tough spot then it's a seriously entrenched force we're dealing with. If they are seriously entrenched in the United States then they are either a mind-numbingly superb invasion force or are citizens. Neither of those cases seems like it would be too good to deal with; so, yeah, I'd prefer to fight them at their home territory. But who are they? All terrorists? If we include all terrorists in our list then what about the Virgina Snipers? The Oklahoma City bombing? It's not like we can ship off to Terroristania and know that just about every moving human without a flag on is an Enemy.

Re:Terrible.

[ScentCone]

You do of course realize that the money did not vanish? It simply went to those that were short on the stocks. Money never vanished it only changes hands.

I should have been clearer. The devaluation of stocks is only a part of it. The slowdown in the economy in general, and disruption of even just local businesses and operations in London alone, will have a wide ripple effect. Madrid had the same problem, but London's much more involved in the wider world economy.

Re:This was innevitable

[uunh haun]

why in the hell they're fucking bombing Iraqi citizens?
according to military commanders, the insurgency is virtually entirely Iraqi, but the facts don't really matter when you want to spout off about your uninformed agenda, do they?

Re:Fucking Animals

[N3WBI3]

Is that supposed to be reasonable and proportional, someone attempted an assasination, bomb the country? And it is their fault it spirals out of control I guess.....

How would yuo have responded? they were already under sancations.. just let it slide right?

Re:What will the EU do?

[bitslinger_42]

I read posts like this and fear for our future. Do you not realize that you cannot end asymetric warfare (i.e. terrorism but with a side-neutral label) through violence. The low-power side will always escallate the violence, a la the speach by Sean Connery in The Untouchables (they pull a knife, you pull a gun). Given this, the only way, the ONLY way, to end asymetric warfare through violence is to kill EVERY SINGLE PERSON on the opposing side. Despite all the dumb-ass kneejerk reactions like the parent, I doubt seriously if the world would stand by idly while Bush and Blair institute a global genocide policy on Muslims.

Re:What will the EU do?

[malsdavis]

"How many people need to die"

Why can't people get a grip on the figures?
Terrorism (although evil and all) kills a slightest fraction of the amount that other man-made causes (i.e. pollution, cars etc) kill. In the U.S.A, air pollution alone kills an estimated 70,000 people per year. Terrorists have a long way to go before they can reach this figure. Yet what is done about air pollution? Nothing, it's increasing in most places.

"The best method to rid the world of these insane fanatics is to kill them at the source"

Yea, because going around the world and making thouands of kids orphans and killing thousands of people's entire families will make them never ever consider wanting to get some sort of revenge.

"Unfortunately we spend too much time placing blame on our own"

Now thats just stupid, two countries have been invaded with 10,000's (some reports say up to 100,000 or so) of their people being killed. Doesn't quite sound like we placed all the blame on ourselves.

What has these wars achieved? it seems little more than help the terrorists (would London and Madrid have been bombed if it wasn't for the Iraq war? Probably not) and play in their game of tit for tat (they blow up something so we blow up something, then them, then us). Its like an arms race, each trying to outdo each other. Eventually the way these sort of things are sorted out is someone with a bit more intelligence comes on the scene and the long, slow process of reconciliation and negotiation (which could probably have occured at the start without all the deaths) starts to occur (as is now happening with ETA and in Israel).

Until this happens, it seems terrorism will simply be an incident that occurs once every so often somewhere around the world (a bit like storm or a flood, but not nearly as bad as a major earthquake or tsunami) and some unfortunate (but thankfully very few) soles will perish.

The only difference bettween terrorism and natural disasters is that the media realise the cash cow that fear of terrorism presents and pump us full of this fear every day (how often is there NOT a story about terrorism or fear of it on the USA news shows?).

Re:This was innevitable

[Peeteriz]

Well, no, it is about the innocent lives and the invasion.

I am a perfectly orderly law-abiding citizen.

However, should my country (Latvia) be invaded by another (doesn't matter which, but, for example, the neighbouring Russia), then I can easily see myself using my savings to buy a gun in the black market and try to murder the official figureheads that the invaders set up (as it is happening now in Iraq). And, if that seems to go nowhere, and my people are suffering, then in desperation trying to go to Moscow and blow up something there to cause as much harm as I can. In a completely futile, completely useless evil act of blind revenge.

Attack on a nation does that to people. To ordinary, peaceful people.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Gulthek]

There is a reason that you vaguely recall it; your mind is trying to point out that the 9/11 attacks was a retaliation for our meddling in the Middle East (specifically our military bases in Saudi Arabia).

Thank god Central America hasn't risen up in a holy war against us; we've certainly given them even more reason to. (E.g. United Fruit Corporation and the Truman Administration)

Seems you can't read, either.

[James A. D. Joyce]

The original comment which you took offence to was: "Maybe someone's mad they didn't get to host the Olympics?? Sheesh."

In what way does this make fun of the bombing victims? I don't see any thing along the lines of "haha, they got blown up". Here's my point: the original post was making fun of the people who did the bombing, not the victims. So in what way is it offensive to the victims of the bombings? But, hey, I don't think you actually bothered to, you know, read the fuckin' comment before you took offence. No, you just saw someone making a comment that wasn't "oh no this is a tragedy this is all blair's fault :( :(" and assumed they were making fun of the victims. You are a hypersensitive whiner.

Re:Seems you can't read, either.

[Hogwash McFly]

I don't think he actually has a problem with morbid humour at all. If you look at his poor grasp of English, as well as the user-name 'Moulinneuf' it's blatantly obvious that he's just an offended French guy trying to undermine you by feigning sympathy for dead people.

- A fellow Brit

PS. Welcome to my friends list.

Re:Seems you can't read, either.

[James A. D. Joyce]

I notice also that he's just stopped responding. Ah, well.

Re:Seems you can't read, either.

[afd8856]

Send in two guys, they'll surrender anyway :-)

Re:Seems you can't read, either.

[dual_boot_brain]

no , I just take my time to think before I reply

Maybe you should take a little extra time and grammar check too.

Re:Seems you can't read, either.

[k1773re7f]

Yeah well I am a real Texan from Texas, lookin' to kick some "Frog/Canuk" butt.

Re:Seems you can't read, either.

[bryce1012]

There is no valid reason that could be given to justify those action. Also its an embarssement that one of the biggest peacefull event on the planet would be name and associated with those murders and it even worst when the fact is that it would blame other nations who I am sure are not in anyway shape or form related to the murderers who commited those reprhensible acts.

It's humor, man. Nobody seriously thinks it's French people upset about the Olympics.

Humor can often be created by juxtaposing a ridiculous idea in place of a serious one. In this case, we replace the evil horrible terrorists who did commit these heinous acts with the French who are of course miffed that they lost the Games. Of course France isn't going to blow up London because of it - it's the ridiculousness of the suggestion that makes it funny.

As for the rest of your post(s), there's no arguing with you. Plus your grammar/punctuation hurts my brain.

Re:Seems you can't read, either.

[nairobiny]

Humor can often be created by juxtaposing a ridiculous idea in place of a serious one. In this case, we replace the evil horrible terrorists who did commit these heinous acts with the French who are of course miffed that they lost the Games. Of course France isn't going to blow up London because of it - it's the ridiculousness of the suggestion that makes it funny.

But it's not funny, because it's missing that vital component that all good comedians can provide in abundance - originality. It's such a blindingly obvious thing to say. And, posted on a day on which 50 people lost their lives, at a time when there were many who did not know whether all their friends and relatives were safely accounted for, shows a particular level of butt-headedness.

There will be people reading comments here who will have lost loved ones. Are they "pussies"? Should they "fuck off"?

I don't suppose the posters would treat real people with this indifference and it's frankly humiliating to hide behind a digital identity and be so callous.

Again, many of the posters on this thread need to "grow up".

Jeez...

[ShoobieRat]

You know, terrorists are pretty stupid people. No really, they have to be some of the dumbest folks I've ever known. Let's examine the facts, shall we?

1. The populace might be scared, but the powers-that-be aren't. Blowing up a subway, though tragic for the citizens, does nothing to effect the British military...which is now further in action due to an angry government. Good job.

2. What, in all domains of intelligence and common sense, would make a terrorist think that the British would yeild to this kind of action? For starters, the British are known for being some of the most stubborn people in Europe!

3. Scare tactics and violence don't effect the British. If suffering massive casualties and leveling their cities is the terrorist's plan for getting the British to listen, someone needs to point them to the nearest WWII documentery.

4. Blowing up a subway and a bus, will hardly do anything to make the British back down. If anything, it will only achieve making the British tighten their security, heighten their awareness, and step-up their efforts against the terrorists. ...I didn't know the terrorist objective was to make things harder for themselves. Idiots.

So, though I am not British nor am I in the UK, I say have a good day, put the kettle on, and get a broom. Hopefully one day the terrorist dorks will get a clue.

Re:Jeez...

[vidarh]

You completely fail to understand terorism. Why do you think the terrorists want the UK to yield? They gain much more if the UK does NOT yield, but reacts in yet another knee-jerk "lets go to war and kill some more terrorists" reaction Bush-style, or enacts yet more limitations on civil rights. THAT is the kind of reactions that they feed on to help recruit more people.

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. Hopefully one day politicians will get a clue, and maybe the terorrist dorks will get a harder time recruiting more people.

Re:Jeez...

[Kalbo]

So how does one "win" against a terrorism? If you capitulate as the Spanish did a year ago then that emboldens the terrorists since they got what they wanted, if you retaliate, then you drive more people to become terrorists.

Re:Jeez...

[brkello]

Look at the American stock market...and this isn't even an attack in our country. Terrorism focus is to damage the economy.

Re:Jeez...

[Cyno]

What if the terrorists work for Bush?

Re:Jeez...

[JohnsonWax]

You do it to spread fear and get your enemy to do stupid things, not to "win".

Which only underscores their stupidity. Of all US/UK cities to bomb, London would have to be the least productive. If Hitler continuously running bombers and rockets over the channel killing 60,000 and destroying 2 million homes couldn't get the Brits to act stupidly then Al Qaeda doesn't stand a chance with that lot.

Hearts and minds to all in London today. Chin up. Show 'em what you're made of.

Re:Jeez...

[Frostalicious]

I believe AQ is ultimately fighting an economic war, the purpose of which is to drain the resources of western countries so that ultimately western hegemony collapses. The strategy employed is to keep the US and Britain engaged. If they remain engaged in Iraq, at home, wherever, this is an unsustainable drain on resources that will ultimately lead to economic collapse. AQ is economically sustainable, while we are currently not.

Thus, AQ wants to maintain the Iraq war, the Afghan war, because they can sustain it indefinitely while we cannot. QA's unwitting partner in this war is China.

Re:Jeez...

[gg3po]

That's an interesting take on things. It will be interesting to see what kind of evidence pops up once the dust settles.

Re:Jeez...

[ShoobieRat]

Economically, this tactic hasn't worked too well. In the US, terrorists completely destroyed the WTT, one of our biggest economic centers, and life has gone on with little a hitch. In the UK, despite destruction of a segment of the transit system, life will go on. As the military steps-up further, more money will flow into the economy from the purchase and manufacture of weapons and equipment.

As for the resolve, the British resolve to defend themselves against terrorism has been further bolstered. The people, refreshed of the reality of the situation, are more likely to push for further protections and/or investigations.

Aside from this all, perhaps our further "risk" from terrorists is due to our "modern" notion of diplomacy. I liked the older version better, where if someone messes with you, you charge back ten-fold and wipe them from the face of the Earth.

Re:Jeez...

[TummyX]

Yeah, like the way the islamics treat other cultures. It's not like they try to take over countries and convert them to an islamic way of thinking or anything. It's not like it's getting so bad in southern thailand now that they're allowing school teachers to carry guns. Those damn buddhists and their oppression and disrespect of muslim culture! Build them more mosques with public money!

View From the City Of London

[The Grassy Knoll]

I work near The Monunent, and the strange thing is that there are currently loads more people on the street than you would normally see. Obviously, it's because the tube is shut, but it's still quite a sight.

Also, they're walking the streets in a vague echo of the tube lines; e.g. Lower Thames Street has a lot more foot traffic because it's roughly along the line of the District/Circle line for people coming into Fenchurch Street and wanting to get to other mainline stations on that line.

.

Re:This was innevitable

[katz]

Are people in the US and England so naive they actually believe their leaders can kill 10s of thousands of people a year without putting them in serious danger?

I really feel for the dead britishs but I think in this moment more than any other it's time to realize the lenght of the terrible mistake that is the war started by the US and England

Your chronology is out of alignment; 9/11 happened before the Iraq war, not the other way around. Seems like people like you are so intent on bashing America and the Bush administration that their surreptitious alteration of the facts is not below them.

people will want to defend themselves against the aggression, it is normal to do so, does anyone trully thought they wouldn't?

Oh, so Islamists are merely "defending themselves", how civilized. No. Islamism's stated objectives are to wage war with, conquer, and subjugate the West. Islamists are on their own track; to that end, they'll continue plotting and attacking regardless of what America, the UK, Israel or any other Western country/Big Satan/Little Satan does.

- Roey

Re:This is indeed an act of war.

[squiggleslash]

Erm. The UK took part in both of the invasions you mention. By what criteria are you arguing that they're "successful actions"? Particularly as the invasion of Iraq seems to have, by and large, done little but make the participants pariahs?

Oops, forgot to finish.

[QMO]

... against Germany or Japan.

Oh yes?

[paranode]

Let's see, assuming these people did it, what they have to say about it:

"rejoice for it is time to take revenge from the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London"

"Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern and western quarters. We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people."

Yes let's please reason with these people, they obviously have their heads on right about the British Zionist Crusade... Perhaps we could meet with the al Qaeda embassy and discuss a possible treaty against the evil Zionist Crusade?

Re:What will the EU do?

[Gulthek]

Too bad for all of us that our CIA intelligence wasn't listened too then.

How many memos will it take?

Putting this in the proper perspective

[billy reuben]

How will it affect the marketing of "V for Vendetta"?

Re:What will the EU do?

[d34thm0nk3y]

Um, wow. You actually believe that "people in Iraq", i.e., normal citizens of Iraq, have anything whatsoever to do with this?

True, but how many of their relatives can one kill before they get involved?

In Weehawken on 9/11 and now in London today ...

[QuatermassX]

Hmmm ... so much for moving to London and feeling far more confident that an attack like this wouldn't happen in England.

Had a few too many drinks last night to celebrate the Olympic win.

I was on the Victoria line this morning going from Highbury down to Green Park to have a coffee before my meeting near Hyde Park corner. Thought it strange that Kings X was closed and the power flickering.

Didn't know what was going on at Green Park. Walked along Piccadilly @ 9.15 and wondered why so many damn people were walking about and the buses jammed.

People on the street here in central London seem in good spirits. Everyone's sending texts to friends and family. Called my mum in South Carolina.

The sound of sirens has been pervasive all morning and into the afternoon. Now I'm contemplating a loooong walk back to Islington.

Proud to be a former New Yorker and very proud of the reaction of the PM, too. (GWB was a bit cringeworthy, to be honest)

firsthand and eyewitness accounts

[whatever3003]

Just found a whole lot of eyewitness accounts here and a bbc journalist log here

Also, the recent flickr activity can be found here.

Re:This was innevitable

[xeno-cat]

"Do you HONESTLY believe that Al-Quaeda gives two shakes about the lives of innocent civilians that died as a result of military operations in Afghanistan..."

Do you believe that the USA, or indeed the entire "Western" world does? The problem is larger and deeper than the media and cetainly governments are willing to admit.

Kind Regards

Bush says this proves he's right

[nagora]

Funny, isn't it, how we're all supposed to be aghast and condem the terrorists who strike at our way of life, but it's next to treason to ask why the UK government goes around provoking this sort of thing in order to further a foreign country's interests in the Middle East.

Or, for that matter, to so much as mention the huge political benefits to Bush and Blair from this action. Don't mention those, but don't think for a moment that either of them won't take those benefits and run with them. Which I see Bush is already doing, without even a final body-count he's too excited at the chance to exploit the bombs to keep his mouth shut even for 24hrs, the disgusting little bastard.

And they wonder why people don't vote more...

Re:Bush says this proves he's right

[GypC]

Gee, your getting in a few political points for your side too, aren't you?

Pot, meet kettle.

Re:Bush says this proves he's right

[nagora]

Gee, your getting in a few political points for your side too, aren't you?

Fuck off. What say I pay someone to kill your family and then tell you that you should vote for me because I'll have them locked up? That's what Bush is doing, and I hope someday he hangs for it, though I know he won't. His sort never do.

Re:Bush says this proves he's right

[GypC]

You're a sad little man.

Re:Bush says this proves he's right

[nagora]

You're a sad little man.

Yeah, right. A gun nut thinks I'm sad. Oh, dear. Whatever shall I do?

TWW

Re:Bush says this proves he's right

[idlethought]

Duck?

Re:It's the old saying. . .

[JimboG1]

I know nothing of the Shadow Government theory...what's the evidence? Can you give me a summary? I'm an ignorant Londoner.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Threni]

> The US (and/or the West) are not responsible exclusively, or even mostly, for
> the situation in the mideast. The mideast has had its own difficulties with
> modernization since before the US was even remotely an influence, or indeed
> even existed.

The difficulties in the Middle East aren't to do with `modernization`, whatever that means. You need to study the history of the region again, with open eyes, this time. It's been a western plaything for some time now. Pay particular attention to western oil companies.

> A terrorist attack is a deliberate decision on the part of another human to
> kill as many people, usually innocent, in the target site as is practical or
> possible

Look at the definition of terrorism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrori sm

It applies to both the actions of `terrorist groups` and 'democratic' regimes such as in the US, UK etc. The bombs in London today were planned to occur at the same time as the G8 summit, where the heads of countries such as the US, UK etc are gathered.

> When it becomes politically expedient, the terrorists will make no
> distinction between London, Washington DC, Paris, or Madrid, regardless of
> any nations real or perceived support or non-support of, e.g., the Iraq
> action. And then what will you do? Be content to placate, and eventually
> essentially live subservient to terrorist whim and demands?

These attacks are in revenge for actions against groups that have long been persecuted by those who would take their countries natural resources just to make a quick buck. You can deny this if you like, but you'll have to wake up sooner or later.

go read history

[diegocgteleline.es]

Oh please, then what triggered 9/11?

Do you really, really, believe that Bin Laden decided to spend several years planning the 9/11 attack, sacrifice several people, kill thousand of innocent people just because he wanted, without a reason? Do you really be that terrorist are the "bad guy" that decides to kill random people

Man, you have seen too many too many hollywood movies or listened (and believed) too many George Bush speeches. OF COURSE there's something which triggered the 9/11 attack. Terrorist don't act randomly and kill people without a reason, why would they? They're not stupid. I don't agree that killing people is the correct way to answer to what EEUU did, but terrorist think that it is, or they have a different vision from what EEUU with respect some military event

Go read some history. I hate how some EEUU citiziens think that EEUU is always "right" just because of their collaboration in the WWII. Yes, there was something that EEUU did that triggered the 9/11, go and learn some history, you'll find that the collaboration in the WWII doesn't neccesarily means that EEUU is always the "good guy"

Re:go read history

[rutledjw]

Read his own literature! You talk about reading, then do it! He has written COUNTLESS times about fighting ANYONE who's not Muslim! The US is the most obvious target aside from Isreal.

Don't be confused, this isn't merely about a military event, this is a religious EDICT. As for the rest of the babble that is your post, it's not worth comment.

Bin Laden and al Qaeada are very clear on their objectives:

• All non-Muslims OUT of the Middle East (basically any nation that is Muslim or that is CLAIMED by Muslims)
• Spread Islam throughout the world

This isn't complicated. Did the US do some things that may have angered him more? Of course, but in the end, he wanted to attack the US regardless.

Re:go read history

[CrayzyJ]

"OF COURSE there's something which triggered the 9/11 attack."

It is widely agreed that it was likely the US involvement in the Middle East peach negotiations between Isreal and Palestine.

Re:go read history

[aicrules]

You leave it pretty ambiguous whether you feel that what you say the EEUU did that triggered 9/11 justitifed those terrible acts.

It is part of Bin Laden's and other such groups fundamental belief that all those who are not part of Islam must die. That's hardly anyone DOING something to trigger an attack against them.

So please, do tell what you feel it is that triggered it and whether you think that justified the terror attacks, because I'll have some more to say if you do.

Re:go read history

[stlhawkeye]

Do you really, really, believe that Bin Laden decided to spend several years planning the 9/11 attack, sacrifice several people, kill thousand of innocent people just because he wanted, without a reason? Do you really be that terrorist are the "bad guy" that decides to kill random people

He had a reason, but it's irrational and insane. He's religious fundamentalist, and the motivations of such people are incomprehensible to reasonable, logical thinkers. He thinks Christians and Jews are abominations and must be exterminated. He hates the West, all of it, regardless of whether or not a given subsection of it is involved in Iraq or not. America is the "Big Satan" and Israel is the "Little Satan" and anybody who isn't actively trying to destroy both nations is the enemy of Islam.

You people amaze me. You are able to throw your hands up in the air at the oddball decisions of President Bush, and say, "Well, he's a religious weirdo, who knows what those people think," but you're attempting to explain the actions of terrorists through logic. "We deserve it," for some reason. "We caused this. This is our fault, if we hadn't (done whatever), then they wouldn't have done this."

No. Bullshit. They tried to knock over the World Trade Center in 1993 when Bill Clinton was president. Why? They bombed the USS Cole during Clinton's term. Why? They slaughtered hundreds at our embassies in Africa. Why? President Clinton mostly ignored them, why did they still want to get us? All because of Gulf 1? If there's no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, why in the world would these terrorists be so upset about Iraq?

And, I ask you, why has there not been a single American civilian death on our own soil since 9/11? How hard would it be for just ONE al Qaeda sympathizer or sleeper cell operative to build a bomb and blow up the food court at a shopping ball? Or a zoo? An amusement park? A sporting event? A crowded bus? Why? NOT ONE. Not one in 4 years. There's almost 300,000,000 people in our borders, and NOT ONE OF THEM has done this. Why?

I actually don't know the answer, but I have a few ideas. (1) They're busy dying in Iraq (2) Our new security policies after 9/11 have been successful on some level (3) They get to America and begin to live here and experience our country while planning their assault, and after experiencing freedom, stability, and economic success, their urge to blow themselves to smithereens or get arrested while trying to both other people up abates and eventually vanishes. Why destroy this? It's paradise compared to the disease-infested cess pools they came from.

Terrorist don't act randomly and kill people without a reason, why would they?

Yes, they do, because they're irrational people. Rational people do not blow themselves up. Rational people do not blow themselves up in an effort to kill other people because they are of a specific religion. You give them too much credit.

They're not stupid.

Yes, they are. Stupid, and brainwashed.

Yes, there was something that EEUU did that triggered the 9/11, go and learn some history, you'll find that the collaboration in the WWII doesn't neccesarily means that EEUU is always the "good guy".

What history? I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Re:go read history

[surprise_audit]

Yes, actually, in some cases, terrorists *do* decide to kill random people. There are some religious fanatics that have been told it's perfectly OK to kill random people from country X (where X is often USA), and that to do so guarantees their place in whatever afterlife they believe in. Maybe not in this case, but it does happen.

Re:go read history

[Anonymous Coward]

"(1) They're busy dying in Iraq"

Repeat after me: Iraq has nothing to do with 911.

Re:go read history

[LifesABeach]

Anybody that can listen to President Bush Jr. for more than 2 sentences most likely has vapor locked with the only question that makes any sense, "Do I tear my ears off first, or do I tear out my hair?" I think it would be very sadistic to invite a bald person to listen to our nations leader.

Re:go read history

[redheaded_stepchild]

I always thought our involvement was a little fruity.

Re:go read history

[NAT0]

although perhaps ironically, bin laden at one point didn't hate the US. the US supported him to defend Afghanistan from the USSR. bin laden only started to get really peeved at the US with desert storm. He never liked the US but he didn't mind as long as they weren't in the middle east. (he had wanted to free Kuwait himself)

Re:go read history

[enjo13]

We when 8 years between the first al-qeada attack on American soil and the second. Don't get comfortable just yet.

Re:go read history

[ag0ny]

He had a reason, but it's irrational and insane. He's religious fundamentalist,

Yes, a religious fundamentalist. Not very different from Bush, in my opinion.

Though in my opinion, Bush's has more faith in money than in religion. Religion is just the excuse he tells to the cattle in order to get voted into office again.

Re:go read history

[pintomp3]

there hasn't been an attack on our soil for 4 years? big deal, there wasn't one for 8 year prior to 9/11. what does that mean? you're an idiot if you think aggression towards others doesn't cause retaliation. noone is saying "we deserve it". they are saying that this violence doesn't happen in a vacuum. no, it is not all because of the gulf war, history actually extends beyond 1990. maybe that was the year you were born. perhaps instead of being content to "have no idea" what people are talking about, read some chompsky and stop watching fox news. we have declared a war on terror, you can't expect it to be one-sided. perhaps you really think they are just crazy and looking for an excuse for conflict. let me ask you this: do you like to fight with crazy bums? i know i do, hence my reply to your rant :)

Re:go read history

[WhiplashII]

Similarly by reading history you will find that appeasement makes the problem worse, not better (Japan, Germany, etc.). The only thing that has worked in the past is total destruction followed by compassionate support of the survivors (Japan, Germany, etc.).

And although there is always something that could have been done better, because there are always opposing viewpoints someone is always mad at you. The terrorists are wrong (even if you call them freedom fighters), just like the few American revelutionaries that misstreated Torries were wrong. It is not acceptable to kill someone who is not trying to kill you. If they are doing something you don't like, fight back - but the most effective ways to fight back are the ways of Greenpeace and Gandi. Especially against a major power.

You might be able to say that they have an excuse for targeting militaries, or military aid. They do not have an excuse to target civilians. The logical way to look at this is to apply the same rules to both sides, and if everyone ends up dead you are wrong! If we responded to them the way they responded to us, their would not be a middle east, oil workers would require radiation shielding, and there would be no Islamic people left on Earth...

Re:go read history

[LKM]

He had a reason, but it's irrational and insane. He's religious fundamentalist, and the motivations of such people are incomprehensible to reasonable, logical thinkers. He thinks Christians and Jews are abominations and must be exterminated. He hates the West, all of it, regardless of whether or not a given subsection of it is involved in Iraq or not. America is the "Big Satan" and Israel is the "Little Satan" and anybody who isn't actively trying to destroy both nations is the enemy of Islam.

That would be a very convenient explanation. It's quite unfortunate that it has no base in reality whatsoever. Bin Laden is no stupid religious fundamentalist who wants to kill all infidels. That's the rhetorics he often uses in his videos to get his followers rallied up, but his actual goal is to get the western countries out of arabic countries. This whole thing started with the presence of U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden wanted them out in order to increase his own influence, and to that effect, he started his campaign against the Americans.

This is about power, not religion.

Re:go read history

[DarthVain]

Ready for a flame. Anyway, while I will agree that Religious nutjobness seems to be a component of these problems, how much of these problems have been created by the US government's past and present Foreign Policy.

Have a poll: These attackes are caused by:

A)Islam Nutjobs hating the Christian Nutjobs

or

B)Groups of people opposed to USA's Government's Past Foreign Policy in their local areas (see Middle East and Orient)

All I know is there are a lot of other Christian dominated contries that don't ever seem to get bombed. The UK was the US's only real partner in the middle east's most recent conflit.

Seems pretty simple to me. People like those terrorist attack governments that mess about in their areas. They seem to use religious nutbars to do the job as an excuse and they are probably the only crazies they can find to blow themselves up...

Anyway I am not an expert, just an opinion.

Re:go read history

[Dolly_Llama]

And, I ask you, why has there not been a single American civilian death on our own soil since 9/11?

Except for the anthrax attacks. What ever happened to that investigation anyway?

Re:go read history

[stlhawkeye]

there hasn't been an attack on our soil for 4 years? big deal, there wasn't one for 8 year prior to 9/11.

Because we kept catching people trying to pull them off.

what does that mean? you're an idiot if you think aggression towards others doesn't cause retaliation.

Of course it does. Hence, our presence in Afghanistan.

they are saying that this violence doesn't happen in a vacuum. no, it is not all because of the gulf war, history actually extends beyond 1990. maybe that was the year you were born.

1976 actually. And I'm aware that history goes further back, but the original poster failed to indicate what specific event or events he was referring to that has fomented Islamic fundamentalist hostility towards the west.

perhaps instead of being content to "have no idea" what people are talking about, read some chompsky and stop watching fox news.

I'm not content. I asked the poster to explain himself. If you've got nothing to respond with but infantile ad hominem attacks on my age, intelligence, or television viewing habits, don't bother responding.

we have declared a war on terror, you can't expect it to be one-sided. perhaps you really think they are just crazy and looking for an excuse for conflict.

They are crazy. What sane, rational person straps explosives to himself and runs into a crowded area and blows himself up because he believes that a big invisible man in the sky will reward him with 13 virgins in the afterlife? Nobody.

Violence is a means to an end for them, it's not the end itself.

let me ask you this: do you like to fight with crazy bums? i know i do, hence my reply to your rant :)

I didn't rant. The lack of substance in your response can't be hidden by passive-aggressive personal attacks and mischaracterizations of what I said.

Re:go read history

[squiggleslash]

No. Bullshit. They tried to knock over the World Trade Center in 1993 when Bill Clinton was president. Why? They bombed the USS Cole during Clinton's term. Why? They slaughtered hundreds at our embassies in Africa. Why? President Clinton mostly ignored them, why did they still want to get us? All because of Gulf 1? If there's no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, why in the world would these terrorists be so upset about Iraq?

And, I ask you, why has there not been a single American civilian death on our own soil since 9/11? How hard would it be for just ONE al Qaeda sympathizer or sleeper cell operative to build a bomb and blow up the food court at a shopping ball? Or a zoo? An amusement park? A sporting event? A crowded bus? Why? NOT ONE. Not one in 4 years. There's almost 300,000,000 people in our borders, and NOT ONE OF THEM has done this. Why?

You appear to be judging Clinton and Bush by different yardsticks.

After Bin Laden's initial WTC attack in 1993, there were no American civilian deaths (from Ladenite terrorism) on American soil either until 9/11, which happened eight years later under a different President. So far as I'm aware, there was only one high profile attempt in the years that followed, an attempt on New Year's Eve, 1999, to blow up LAX, which was foiled by the intelligence in place at the time. We don't know what attempts have been made since 9/11, but we know that the government periodically puts the country on high alert.

Meanwhile, so far as I can see, terrorism continues to be used against the US outside of the country, most of the focus being in Iraq, for obvious reasons. Americans, civilians, government officials, and troops, are still being targetted.

But then the suggestion Clinton ignored terrorists is also false. Clinton made a number of high profile attempts to deal with Osama Bin Laden, much of which was ignored at the time because of the impeachment proceedings. The controversy over his bombing of a factory that turned out to manufacture children's asprin is one example. Clearly though, the factor that ensured there were no terrorist attacks on American soil from 1993 to 2001 had much to do with the way the government of the time managed the threat.

This isn't really a day to make political points. Your posting, at least these two paragraphs, came across as a bizarre example of Clinton bashing that were both unnecessary and highly misleading.

Re:go read history

[stlhawkeye]

That would be a very convenient explanation. It's quite unfortunate that it has no base in reality whatsoever. Bin Laden is no stupid religious fundamentalist who wants to kill all infidels. That's the rhetorics he often uses in his videos to get his followers rallied up, but his actual goal is to get the western countries out of arabic countries.

I almost went back and amended by post before writing to include this. But I figured that Slashdot would know what I meant. Your rank and file Islamic terrorist believes all this drek.

Do you think that the terrorism against America and the West will end if we just pull all of our military presence out of the Arab world? I really doubt it. Next they'll attack because we keep supporting Israel, America's surrogate in the middle east. And if we abandon Israel, they'll want us to stop meddling in the Arab economies with our oil purchases, and once we do that, they'll....

This shit won't stop if we acquisce (sp) to their demands. I do realize that you did not, in your post, suggest that we should, only that my summation of bin Laden's motivations is inaccurate. And I actually do realize that and grant you the point.

This is about power, not religion.

I forget who said it, probably my plumber, but this quote jumps out at me: "all fighting is about money or sex." Religion is the rally point, I agree with you.

Re:go read history

[hyperizer]

He had a reason, but it's irrational and insane.

His reason was that the U.S. left troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Iraq war and he wanted them out. Doesn't sound that insane to me. So how do we respond? Another Iraq war. Now that's crazy.

Re:go read history

[MagikSlinger]

Nice hystrionics full of specious reasoning.

He thinks Christians and Jews are abominations and must be exterminated. He hates the West, all of it, regardless of whether or not a given subsection of it is involved in Iraq or not. America is the "Big Satan" and Israel is the "Little Satan" and anybody who isn't actively trying to destroy both nations is the enemy of Islam.

He doesn't think of Christians and Jews as abominations. He just considers us unbelievers who must be kept out of Arab affairs and especially out of Islamic holy sites. E.g., the American forces stationed near Mecca. He and his followers are sick of having their plans for an ideal, "just" Islamic society being thwarted by American funded & trained tyrants. Like the Saudi royal family. It's that simple. He's quite OK with letting us live our corrupt, infedlic lives; he just wants us to do it over here, not there.

Now his vision of an ideal, "just" Islamic society is abhorrent to most everyday Arabs, and that's where his campaign of terror comes in. Essentially, he provokes the West to occupy and brutalise an Arab country. Al Queda shows it is "fighting the infdels over there to prevent them from coming over here". They become popular. They can take control. Nightmare for everyone who lives under a pure Islamist state.

No. Bullshit. They tried to knock over the World Trade Center in 1993 when Bill Clinton was president. Why? They bombed the USS Cole during Clinton's term. Why? They slaughtered hundreds at our embassies in Africa. Why? President Clinton mostly ignored them, why did they still want to get us? All because of Gulf 1? If there's no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, why in the world would these terrorists be so upset about Iraq?

Your life would be easier if you stopped watching Fox news. Al Queda's stated aims have always been "the expulsion of American Armed forces from the sacred sites of Islam [Saudi Arabia]". That's why OBL got followers. That's why they came after the U.S. It's a stupid, irrational reason, but that's religion for you.

And, I ask you, why has there not been a single American civilian death on our own soil since 9/11?

Because Al Queda likes to think big. Simple suicide bombings in a food court are too small potatoes. Also, their main goal was to get America to invade, occupy and brutalise an Arab nation. Mission Accomplished.

I actually don't know the answer, but I have a few ideas. (1) They're busy dying in Iraq (2) Our new security policies after 9/11 have been successful on some level (3) They get to America and begin to live here and experience our country while planning their assault, and after experiencing freedom, stability, and economic success, their urge to blow themselves to smithereens or get arrested while trying to both other people up abates and eventually vanishes. Why destroy this? It's paradise compared to the disease-infested cess pools they came from.

Al Queda is not a monolithic group. It's the umbrella name given by the West to the world-wide Islamist insurgency that views OBL as their role-model. Most of the "Al Queda" fighters in Iraq are locals and from neighbouring states. The cells are very likely still alive and kicking. Just waiting for their next order.

As for "cess-pools", that would be true if they were poor. Almost all of the known Al Queda operatives captures or killed came from very nice, middle-class Arab families. Fairly well educated and had a good future if they wanted it. I saw an interview with the family of one of the 9/11 hijackers and their pain and grief were heart-breaking. They hate Islamists and terrorism. They're quite moderate Islamics and have nice jobs. They don't understand why their son suddenly turned their back on them when he went to Europe to go to University. He almost completely stopped

Re:go read history

[dr2chase]

(1) busy dying in Iraq (2)new security policies after 9/11 (3) They get to America [ to plan their assault, but they come to like it here. ]

I'd put most of my money on #2. It's pretty clear that we are casting a pretty wide net looking for (Islamic) terrorists in the US, because we seem to be snagging a non-trivial number who are (probably) not real threats. That has got to be plenty disruptive. The 9/11 terrorists lived here and it did not change their minds, and the WTC bombers were not dissuaded either. In the blinding light of 20-20 hindsight, it's clear that Saddam Hussein had neither WMDs nor ties to Al-Qaeda, the rest of the world has not been free of terrorism, and the Taliban is not yet been run out of Afghanistan.

So I pick door #2. I also hope it is not door #1, because if you look at the rate of coalition casualties (http://icasualties.org/oif/), we don't seem to be making an appreciable dent in the supply of potential terrorists. If that's the only way to stop terrorism, then it's 2 soldiers/day and a billion dollars per week, with no end in sight.

Re:go read history

[soft_guy]

OK, then how come all I read about Islam in the papers is about people blowing themselves up and declaring Jihad on Israel? I read all kinds of stuff about the Jewish faith that is non-violent. Same for most Christian denominations. Same for Mormons.

Re:go read history

[zardo]

Here here. This guy has made a very good argument, without resorting to name calling like I would have done :)

On the topic of history and correlations that can be made between present and past events, I'd like to add that the middle east used to be a relatively advanced civilization, hundreds of years ago starting right smack in the middle of Iraq with the river valley civilizations. I think the real factor that caused their civilization to go downhill was the abundance of wealth they found themselves living on. The same thing happened with Spain in the 16/17th centuries, their status as #1 trade empire led them to unheard of riches in South American conquests and it didn't take 100 years for their country to find itself in the dumps. There are of course exceptions, but if you want to blame the state of the middle east on one event in history, it was the adoption of oil as the primary source of energy, and the class differences resulting from it in the middle east. When most of the country is living in squalor and a few royalty are living like... well... royalty. You see that fight being fought on a much smaller scale in America.

It really pisses me off to see you people come out and say "See what you've done, America?" It's such a ridiculous thing to assert that America, or western society "triggered" stuff like this, and it's exactly what the terrorists want people to think. It's just sad.

Re:go read history

[dalutong]

He had a reason, but it's irrational and insane. He's religious fundamentalist, and the motivations of such people are incomprehensible to reasonable, logical thinkers. He thinks Christians and Jews are abominations and must be exterminated. He hates the West, all of it, regardless of whether or not a given subsection of it is involved in Iraq or not. America is the "Big Satan" and Israel is the "Little Satan" and anybody who isn't actively trying to destroy both nations is the enemy of Islam.


I wouldn't say it was irrational. You just drew the steps in which he reasoned it (thugh I don't know him personally so I don't know if those are actually the steps he used). You might think the the premise is unreasonable, but that's a relative term. We think that polygamists are wacko. Many of us think that homosexuals are f'd up. Many of us think that any government that is not democratic is bad. What gives us this authority? It certainly isn't devine.

We base our logic on one premise, he bases his on another premise. I don't happen to agree with his -- but I don't think it is insane or irrational. You can't plan 9/11 or any of the other successes he's had if you're irrational.

Just like I don't think Bush is irrational or stupid. He might be working on a totally different premise from me, but he is working on that premise pretty rationally.

You people amaze me. You are able to throw your hands up in the air at the oddball decisions of President Bush, and say, "Well, he's a religious weirdo, who knows what those people think," but you're attempting to explain the actions of terrorists through logic. "We deserve it," for some reason. "We caused this. This is our fault, if we hadn't (done whatever), then they wouldn't have done this."

And you ppl amaze me. They aren't right to throw up their hands and say they can't understand why Bush does what he does. I disagree with a good portion of the Bush agenda, but I can understand clearly why he does it. The same way I know why Hal Turner thinks what he thinks or Rush Limbaugh.

As for deserving it -- I don't think deserve is a good word. We could have predicted it. If you're a black man in Howard Beach, Queens, and you feel the white racists creeping in on you, regardless of what the surrounding peoples' intention are, it is reasonable to expect that some percentage of such black men will lash out. Why? Because there have been high-profile racist attacks in Howard Beach that have made ppl paranoid.

To extrapolate -- the British are blamed for a lot of the problems in the M. East because they are seen as having supported illigitimate governments. The U.S. and British invasion strikes many as the same thing -- just as we'd lash out of the japanese attacked us, even if they were "saving" us from an an awful leader.

No. Bullshit. They tried to knock over the World Trade Center in 1993 when Bill Clinton was president. Why? They bombed the USS Cole during Clinton's term. Why? They slaughtered hundreds at our embassies in Africa. Why? President Clinton mostly ignored them, why did they still want to get us? All because of Gulf 1? If there's no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, why in the world would these terrorists be so upset about Iraq?

I think I made that clear enough above. They hate us like we hated soviet advances into our allies' land. Same reason we overthrew many communist governments (even popular ones.)

And, I ask you, why has there not been a single American civilian death on our own soil since 9/11? How hard would it be for just ONE al Qaeda sympathizer or sleeper cell operative to build a bomb and blow up the food court at a shopping ball? Or a zoo? An amusement park? A sporting event? A crowded bus? Why? NOT ONE. Not one in 4 years. There's almost 300,000,000 people in our borders, and NOT ONE OF THEM has done this. Why?

I actually don't know the answer, but I have a few ideas. (1) They're busy dying in Iraq (2) Our new security policies after 9/11 have

Re:go read history

[LKM]

Do you think that the terrorism against America and the West will end if we just pull all of our military presence out of the Arab world?

No. Terrorist organisations have an interesting property: They start out fighting for a cause. To do this, they need money. Since they're already doing illegal things, getting the money illegally is the easiest course of action. So they start dealing with drugs, robbing banks, smuggling, whatever. Slowly, they turn from an idealistic organisation into a purely criminal organisation which uses its original cause to get new members.

I bet that by now, Bin Laden isn't interested in his original cause that much anymore. It's probably become purely about power for him.

So, what do you do against an organisation like that? First of all, it would most likely be a good idea to stop helping them gain new members. Something tells me that invading Iraq wasn't the best way to achieve that.

Re:go read history

[Shaper_pmp]

Aaaah. Nothing quite like demonising your opponent, is there? It allows you to safely ignore any trace of humanity on their part or consider addressing your own side's shortcomings.

Upfront, I should state I'm no al Quaeda apologist, or even USA-hater. Nor am I a "Pr0-USA!!! Ye4!!!" cheerleader. I am merely an informed, educated and interested British citizen, with a comparatively unbiased (state-owned!) media and a basic grasp of history.

Now, why would Bin Laden hate the USA so much?

"He had a reason, but it's irrational and insane. He's religious fundamentalist, and the motivations of such people are incomprehensible to reasonable, logical thinkers."

Yes, he hates the US. Yes, he hates them in part because of the western cultural imperialism that's eroding the fundmentalist culture of the middle east.

This isn't the US's fault - it's not deliberate, and it's unfair to blame you for the attractiveness of your civilisation, especially to young people. However, when the older fundamentalist generation sees their cultures values being eroded, and sees their children becoming more and more influenced by a culture that embodies (to them) everything immoral and evil (half-naked women, religious tolerance, blasphemy, drug/alcohol consumption, etc, etc, etc), you start to see where dislike might start.

However, are you aware that the entire destabilised state of the present-day middle east is due almost entirely to British and US involvement? Seriously - The British, French and several others moved in and took over an area that was mostly the preserve of "unofficial" thenic groups (sometimes even semi-nomadic tribes) - nothing even so organised as a nation. We/they owned most of the middle east, for quite a while, right through the beginning of the 20th century. Somewhere around WWII (my precise dates are hazy) we pulled out in short order, and apart from setting up a few unrepresentative, unpopular puppet governments, we basically left the region to collapse into chaos.

At about this time the US steps in. Not, it must be said, to promote decency, democracy or peace. Throughout most of this century the US has waged an intensively invasive foreign policy, actively encouraging and supplying rebellions and terrorism, destabilising governments and economically ruining states, solely to secure supplies of cheap, plentiful oil.

This is not left-wing propaganda or make-believe - this is all documented history. FWIW, if you try to look this up you'll have a much easier time using non-US sources. US culture has practiced self-censorship (through a mixture of isolationist disinterest and active suppression) for years, and it's only recently become aware of it itself.

The US has both encouraged and directly committed probably more terrorist acts than you have had directed against you, even now. The US has unashamedly befriended, propped up, supplied and even encouraged dictators, wilfully ignoring their horiffic human-rights records because they found it expedient to do so. As examples, do the names Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden mean anything to you? Guess who trained, encouraged and supplied them both in the 70s and 80s? The CIA, and US foreign policy.

Also look at Israel - I started off highly pro-Israel (culturally normal) as a kid, but as I've grown up their increasing bullying, over-use of force and (yes, admit it) horiffic human-rights abuses (especially in Palestine) have shown them to be overbearing, over-aggressive and invasive. They are (for historical reasons) hated by arab nations. However, they have (on occasion) gone far beyond even reasonable retaliation, and the US has backed them all the way.

From the middle-eastern perspective, the US meddles and destabilises entire regimes, causing untold human sufering and atrocities, so you can have a few cents off your tank of gas. They commit horiffic human rights violations (Guantanamo - even now!), and actively support others who do the same, all the wh

Re:go read history

[eclectic4]

It's simple, there is no argument. Bin Laden has explained why several times. There is no reason for "agreeing" to anything. He stated explicitly that it was becuase of our support for Isreal and for the planting of US military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia (among a few other places)

Re:go read history

[Rimbo]

what slashdot needs is "+1, pwn3d the parent"

Re:go read history

[Johnny Mnemonic]

They tried to knock over the World Trade Center in 1993 when Bill Clinton was president. Why?

Simply put, it's because we give tremendous financial support to Israel, who in turn kills Palestinians. Israel is a hard target, and we are (were) not. Therefore, by attacking us they hoped that we would withdraw our support of Israel, weakening them.

Rational people do not blow themselves up.

We have heroes of our military who themselves give their lives to save others. Al Queda operates from the same instinct: there are times when it is necessary to sacrifice yourself to save the lives of others; and they believe that they are working at stopping an oppressor who kills Palestinians.

Frankly, to think otherwise is to underestimate the enemy. You must operate with a clear perspective if you hope to defeat them, otherwise you target the wrong targets and fail to see their vulnerabilities.

Re:go read history

[stlhawkeye]

No. Terrorist organisations have an interesting property: They start out fighting for a cause. To do this, they need money. Since they're already doing illegal things, getting the money illegally is the easiest course of action. So they start dealing with drugs, robbing banks, smuggling, whatever. Slowly, they turn from an idealistic organisation into a purely criminal organisation which uses its original cause to get new members.

That's a really good point. Very insightful, actually. I recently read a book that included some critical thinking along these lines to explain how benevolent philosophies like Socialism and Communism lead to brutal governments like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. The book was The Case for Democracy, by Natan Sharansky, a former political prisoner of the Soviet Union. It's light on facts and documentation, but the guy's political theory on the difference between fear societies and free societies is worth reading. He challenged much of what I've held as political gospel and forced me to rethink the nature of freedom and what separates nations like the US and UK from places like, well, Iraq or Afghanistan. His thesis is that true freedom all begins with human rights and holding a government accountable for its human rights record, and that it was this that truly brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it is this that will bring about peace in the Middle East. A very fascinating read, and I see much of Sharansky's theory on fear societies in your post.

Re:go read history

[badmammajamma]

Very well said. I'm glad there's at least a few who actually get it. This country is filled with ignorant blowhards who know absolutely nothing about the people we are fighting. Unfortunately our leaders are no better so this will go on.

Re:go read history

[stlhawkeye]

You appear to be judging Clinton and Bush by different yardsticks.

I'm not judging either of them. I'm pointing out that we've experienced two different reactions to terrorism, and neither have been effective in ending it. I fully supported President Clinton's foreign policy on the Middle East.

But then the suggestion Clinton ignored terrorists is also false. Clinton made a number of high profile attempts to deal with Osama Bin Laden, much of which was ignored at the time because of the impeachment proceedings. The controversy over his bombing of a factory that turned out to manufacture children's asprin is one example.

The evidence that Clinton had to work with at the time rather clearly pointed to that factory being connected with both bin Laden and Iraq. Our intelligence operatives found a rare chemical compound in soil outside the factory that is used in the creation of VX gas. The factory was also part of the Oil-for-Food program that we now know was an utterly corrupt money laundering disaster. I don't think the case is as open-and-shut on the Sudanese factory as we'd like to believe. I think President Clinton did the right thing, based on the intelligence he had at the time.

Clearly though, the factor that ensured there were no terrorist attacks on American soil from 1993 to 2001 had much to do with the way the government of the time managed the threat.

I don't think that's clear at all. Nor is it clear that our current policy is preventing them. I put forth some hypotheses on why there aren't more attacks, and I'm really not sure if any of them are responsible. Those hypotheses are my gut instinct on what might be responsible for our relative domestic peace. They could be way off, I don't know.

This isn't really a day to make political points.

I'm responding to political points.

Your posting, at least these two paragraphs, came across as a bizarre example of Clinton bashing that were both unnecessary and highly misleading.

I'm not bashing Clinton. He's been one of the best presidents of my lifetime.

Re:go read history

[learn fast]

Just because they're really bad doesn't mean they are also stupid. If they were stupid, they would be a lot easier to fucking catch, wouldn't they?

Any plan that starts by assuming that the enemy must be stupid and and irrational is a plan that in hindsight is going to look like it was doomed to failure from the start

Re:go read history

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>President Clinton mostly ignored them, why did they still want to get us? All because of Gulf 1?

President Clinton came within hours of killing bin Laden. Read Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies".

Yes, because of Gulf War 1, and specifically for a reason that seems so unlikely to a Western mind that nobody seems to take it seriously. Osama bin Laden was bent completely out of shape by having US troops based in Saudi Arabia. I asked a (sane, compassionate) Arab colleague whether that was for real. He gave me one of those of-course-how-could-you-even-ask looks and tried to explain how jarring it is to have a foreign army in a closed conservative society.

This is not new! Two generations ago the Saudi population went on a general strike to protest the US air base at Dhahran.

To leave nothing unsaid, "triggered 9/11" is not in the same universe as giving a reason for it. All the moral responsibility for mass murder rests with the man who organized it instead of trying for another general strike.

chmod a+x /bin/laden

Re:go read history

[FungiFromYuggoth]

There's a different theory about the decline of Islamic civilization that I find more compelling:

For a while, the middle east was the crossroads of the world. Then, longer sea voyages became popular, and Europe started trading directly with Africa, India, and Asia. The middle east became an isolated backwater, and retreated into the "Good old days" as compensation.

No argument from me that income disparity is a major problem, particularly when you're talking about democracy.

Re:go read history

[flyingsquid]

NOT ONE. Not one in 4 years.

Well, why bother to bring terrorists all the way to the U.S. to kill Americans, which costs them time and money, when we're shipping Americans to the terrorists in Iraq, which costs us time and money?

Yes, they are. Stupid, and brainwashed.

Demonizing the enemy makes you feel good, but in the long run it's a dumb move. It may be unsavory, but you've got to understand your enemy to effectively fight him. If you think bin Laden and his group are stupid, you don't understand him. The 9-11 plot wasn't stupid- it was brilliant. Twisted, but brilliant: with a few thugs, box cutters and airline tickets you've suddenly got four cruise missiles armed with thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Before dismissing these guys as idiots, it's worth looking at what his plan is:

"All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

"This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.

"All Praise is due to Allah.

"So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah."

Well, George Bush may not have a long-term strategy for Iraq... but bin Laden sure as hell does. So who's the dumbass?

Re:go read history

[squiggleslash]

The evidence that Clinton had to work with at the time rather clearly pointed to that factory being connected with both bin Laden and Iraq. Our intelligence operatives found a rare chemical compound in soil outside the factory that is used in the creation of VX gas. The factory was also part of the Oil-for-Food program that we now know was an utterly corrupt money laundering disaster. I don't think the case is as open-and-shut on the Sudanese factory as we'd like to believe. I think President Clinton did the right thing, based on the intelligence he had at the time

I'm aware of that and wasn't criticising Clinton for doing so, I was mentioning it as a high profile example of Clinton action.

That said, I understand your general points and am I glad we both clarified certain issues. My concern was the way you worded your original two paragraphs, it looked like it was suggesting the non-appearance of mainland America terrorist activity was something new since 9/11/2001, and it was, therefore, because of the way Bush had handled 9/11, that Clinton had somehow failed to do. I'm glad that isn't what you intended to mean.

Re:go read history

[Serapth]

Jesus christ your small minded.

Why dont you hear only hear about the evils that Islamics do? Its called fear mongering and scape goating. The US press is absolutely pathetic and uses fear and focus groups to drive ratings. Besides, how often do you hear about "good deeds" on the news in general?

One last thing to keep in mind... the press is racist as fuck. Im a middle class white male... its not exactly like im sensitive to these things... but listen to the news instead of just absorbing it. You will hear emphasis put on ethnicity or religion in any news story, especially when there is a villian. You always here "the 23 year old Islamic male" or "the 24 year old black man"... you never hear "the 20 year old jew" or "the 35 year old white male", unless the jew or white male is the victim. Its the way of the press.

As to condeming islam based off the actions of a few zealots, thats fucked. Again, im agnostic myself, so I dont much have a stake in this either... Want me to condemn Christians off their actions during the crusades? Or the inquisition? Or catholics for their actions in Ireland? Its zealotry that needs to be stamped out ( both here, like the government in power and those of terrorists around the world ). Want to know something though... you cant. Zealots are just wired differently... if it wasnt religion, they would find a completely different reason to focus their obsessiveness. So, since we cant stop terrorism by getting rid of the zealots... what can we do? Well, there is one thing...

Learn. Starting in the western countries would probrably be a pretty good way to go. Learn something about foreign countries... learn something about other religions. Once you have the ability to see the world through another mans eyes, you will be amazed at how much it changes you. Then, perhaps once a certain amount of enlightenment has been reached, then maybe, just maybe the west will be able to change the mid-easts perceptions aswell.

The part that depresses me the most is, frankly, 9/11 was the BEST chance of causing soceity to do this. The world was supporting America, not just paying lip service. The world went together to Afghanistan, which I believe the vast majority would agree was "a good thing", even most Afghani's. For a few days there I think a great many Americans ( and other westerners ) were actually asking things like "why would they do this to us?" For a few days ( months even ), the western world was united in a way that has never happened. Too bad that the president-almost-elect milked the sentement for all it was worth to push his own war mongering agenda. Even more sadly, to bad so many people went along with it and supported him for another 4 years :(. Sad sad times we live in.

So here is my recommendation to you as to how you can do your part to stop terrorism. Learn about a foreign culture, read up about Islam and what they truly believe in. Once you have done that, reflect on the comments you made today. Once you realize just how misguided you were, then convince one other such misguided soul to learn about the world around them aswell. Think of it as a viral solution. Will it stop terrorism by becoming more informed? No! Will it be more effective then bombing poor innocents in the middle east? Your bet your ass it will!

Re:go read history

[Listen Up]

Honestly, American soldiers who are Christian kill because [i]they[/i] believe [i]they[/i] are right and [i]their[/i] version of God is on [i]their[/i] side. So, does the method of killing make any difference between the Christians and the Islamics? No, it doesn't. Each person believes they are righteous for killing for the exact same reasons. Each person is equally wrong.

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.

Re:go read history

[stlhawkeye]

My concern was the way you worded your original two paragraphs, it looked like it was suggesting the non-appearance of mainland America terrorist activity was something new since 9/11/2001, and it was, therefore, because of the way Bush had handled 9/11, that Clinton had somehow failed to do. I'm glad that isn't what you intended to mean.

No, not at all. I emphasized Bill Clinton to emphasize "a different president." I was trying to point out that Clinton's response to terrorist was far more restrained than Bushes and yet we kept getting attacked anyway, and then finally 9/11 happened.

I was also not at all postulating that Bush's domestic or foreign policy is keeping us safe. I put worth 3 hypotheses on why we aren't being attacked, and one of them does include new security measures and another the Iraq war. These are hypotheses, however, and not statements of opinion. I really can't figure out why we're not getting attacked. Spain got hit. London just got hit. Why not us? We're the biggest power over there with the most ground troops, why not us? I really don't know. Maybe they don't think it'll work? Maybe they want to erode support first?

It's a question to discuss, but I wasn't trying to suggest that I had the answer.

Re:go read history

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Why aren't we passing a constitutional amendment to outlaw Islam in the US? I am not saying this to troll. I honestly think that Islam is a terrible ideology that poisons the mind.

The same can be said of most any religion. Christianity is historically responsible for more pain, suffering, and death than Islam can hope to achieve in another thousand years of bombing at this rate. Have you ever read the Qu'ran? It is not really all that different than the bible. The organized versions of both religions teach their followers to obey the church, don't think for yourself or try to decide what is right or wrong, believe what you're told and do what you're told without question.

For anyone who thinks Christian terrorists aren't as bad or worse for America than Islamic head into the country and see the effects of the KKK or go to any small town and watch some "good" christians beat the crap out of, torture, and murder someone for being gay. (As an aside, although most major Christian sects including the catholics decry homosexuality as an affront to god, there were periods of time where it was accepted by christianity. There are even catholic gay marriage ceremonies in some writings from the middle ages.) The truth is Islamic terrorists have caused very little damage to the U.S. compared to the horrors brought about by the teachings of organized christians (not necessarily Jesus, his philosophies seem to have been much more peaceful and progressive). If we need to ban a cult, Christianity would be a better target.

I think we ought to be able to outlaw certain violent cults and religions in the US.

It might have happened by now if one of those cults was not running the show. Note, I am in no way endorsing the banning of any religion. I think it is a stupid idea.

Re:go read history

[stlhawkeye]

He doesn't think of Christians and Jews as abominations.

No, I was generalizing the radical Islamic response to Christianity and Judaism, and incorreectly personifying it in bin Laden. Lots of people responding to me have pointed this same thing out, I oversimplified my opinion/argument and was unclear.

Your life would be easier if you stopped watching Fox news.

Ok, what is it with the knee-jerk response that I'm some kind of right wing Fox News junkie? I don't watch TV news, and you're right, it does make my life easier. Less stressful anyway.

It's a stupid, irrational reason, but that's religion for you.

Which is what I said in my original statement, although you omitted that part from your quote above. Nice cherry picking!

Because Al Queda likes to think big. Simple suicide bombings in a food court are too small potatoes. Also, their main goal was to get America to invade, occupy and brutalise an Arab nation. Mission Accomplished.

I thought their goal was "the expulsion of American Armed forces from the sacred sites of Islam [Saudi Arabia]".

Al Queda is not a monolithic group. It's the umbrella name given by the West to the world-wide Islamist insurgency that views OBL as their role-model. Most of the "Al Queda" fighters in Iraq are locals and from neighbouring states. The cells are very likely still alive and kicking. Just waiting for their next order.

I'm aware of that. Our best intelligent indicates, last I checked, that "al Qaeda" may not really be organized at all outside of the highest levels of bin Laden's inner circle.

As for "cess-pools", that would be true if they were poor.

Most of them are. Arabs, I mean, living in these countries.

Almost all of the known Al Queda operatives captures or killed came from very nice, middle-class Arab families.

Ah. This is why you disagree. I was either unclear or you misunderstood.

Try reading any of Michael Sheurer's [wikipedia.org] books. It'll help you understand what we're up against and how to fight them. The only bad thing I can say about him is that he instigated and supported the "rendition" program of the CIA that transported terrorist suspects to friendly nations for torture and interrogation.

I will check them out. I'm woefully behind on my summer reading list but that's no reason to avoid lengthening it.

Re:go read history

[SeattleGameboy]

That is just idiotic!!! If you followed your own logic, then you wouldn't have made such a stupid statement. If Bin Laden believed that US citizens do not have the stomach take light casualty while involved in actions far away countries that they know little about that they care even less about, then yes that is true. But this means that you needed to keep the same kind of attacks in places that Americans do not CARE ABOUT!!! Most places in Middle East or Africa fits the bill and they could have waged this type of battle for years with much effectiveness. But that is not just what they wanted to do. They wanted to make a statement to the Americans that they are not safe, even at home. Because that is what "terrorism" is all about. When some play ground nearby your home is vandalized, you may get mad, but you may not be motivated enough to do something about it. However, if your HOME is vandalized, you sure are going to act on it, no matter what. That is EXACTLY the response that Bin Laden was counting on when they attacked US. And we have played right into his hand. Just look at Iraq and middle east in general right now. It is even more of a disaster than it was before. It is even EASIER now to recruit and train future terrorists. THAT is EXACTLY what Bin Laden needed to wage his holy war. He knew and found out exactly what he was looking for, much to our chagrin.

Re:go read history

[Guppy06]

"They tried to knock over the World Trade Center in 1993 when Bill Clinton was president. Why?"

He'd been in office for a year and still hadn't pulled troops out of Saudi Arabia.

"They bombed the USS Cole during Clinton's term. Why?"

He'd ordered cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan. I'm surprised you don't remember this, since it was assumed by some that it was meant to distract the public from his pending impeachment.

"If there's no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, why in the world would these terrorists be so upset about Iraq?"

It was convenient. You don't have to have a history of being close to the Ba'ath Party to be able to point at a bunch of convenient Arabs whose country has been overrun and paint them as victims of Western imperialism.

Were we close to the Cuban people in the 1890's, or did they simply make convenient victims of "Spanish oppression" in order to justify our invasion?

"Why destroy this? It's paradise compared to the disease-infested cess pools they came from."

Because we're seen as the reason why their homes are so miserable.

"Yes, they do, because they're irrational people."

Reasoning irrationally and behaving irrationally are two different things.

"Rational people do not blow themselves up."

Actually, they do, depending on circumstances. They don't do it for fun, but may otherwise rational people have a point where they would consider trading their own life in an effort to take the life of another.

"Yes, they are. Stupid, and brainwashed."

Brainwashed, fanatical supporters can easily become brainwashed, fanatical enemies. You don't send such people to do important and intricate missions.

Re:go read history

[Listen Up]

The HTML tags were not formatted properly and I apologize for the improperly formatted post. I did not press the Preview button before I submitted my by mistake.

Also, I do not agree nor support the barbaric methods used by the Islamic terrorists groups to put their message across to the rest of the world. The cycle of hate and violence is only perpetuated by their actions and the reactions of the countries involved in the attacks. It is truly unfortunate for everyone.

Re:go read history

[An Onerous Coward]

"They are crazy. What sane, rational person straps explosives to himself and runs into a crowded area and blows himself up because he believes that a big invisible man in the sky will reward him with 13 virgins in the afterlife? Nobody."

If I were under the delusion that, by doing so, I would be striking a blow for a good and noble cause, while simultaneously guaranteeing myself an eternity in paradise, the explosive conclusion follows logically from the premises.

I don't see it as crazy. Many people we consider quite sane and normal have farcical beliefs that they are wholly unwilling--possibly even unable--to question. I personally lump most religious people fall into this category, as well as free market zealots, dyed-in-the-wool Marxists, a lot of New Agers, and knee-jerk patriots. Only a handful among them are incapable of rational thought, but they cannot be made to examine or question those assumptions that underpin their view of the world.

I think it's endemic to human nature. We want to seek out a cause that elevates us above others, demands our energy and action, and provides a meaning that day-to-day living may seem to lack. That's the hook that lures people into terrorist camps, UFO cults, Scientology, and all manner of other causes that we outsiders consider insane.

In response to 9/11, we adopted the same us-vs-them mentality that held the hijackers under its sway. We wanted to find "them" and blow "them" to smithereens, and anyone who questioned those actions was helping "them". I believe that some of our actions were justified (beating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, for example). But everything we've done has had the unintended effect of rallying support for "them" around the globe.

So what to do? I don't see any way to sap the energy from the opposition, except by drawing more people into the "us" camp. In Iraq, that may mean reducing our presence there, replacing our troops with Iraqi soldiers or international troops. At home, it means reducing our dependence on oil, so that we don't need to be so militarily involved in the Middle East, or to buddy up to corrupt regimes like Saudi Arabia. Around the world, it means fighting global poverty and disease.

There will still be terrorists, and we'll still need to take reasonable precautions to defend ourselves against them. But I have this cockeyed theory that boils down to, "If this world is a decent place for everyone to live, people won't be so eager to blow themselves into the next one."

Re:go read history

[stlhawkeye]

Aaaah. Nothing quite like demonising your opponent, is there?

Demonizing? You mean by calling people who blow themselves up in an effort to murder other innocent people "crazy"? Then yes, there's nothing quite like it.

It allows you to safely ignore any trace of humanity on their part or consider addressing your own side's shortcomings.

If you're asserting that this is the purpose of my response, I disagree strongly. Post some evidence to back up this conclusion.

I am merely an informed, educated and interested British citizen, with a comparatively unbiased (state-owned!) media and a basic grasp of history.

I am an informed, educated and interested American citizen, who ignores the TV news and has a basic grasp of history.

Now, why would Bin Laden hate the USA so much?

I've addressed the oversimplification of my point in several other posts, I won't rehash it here.

However, when the older fundamentalist generation sees their cultures values being eroded, and sees their children becoming more and more influenced by a culture that embodies (to them) everything immoral and evil (half-naked women, religious tolerance, blasphemy, drug/alcohol consumption, etc, etc, etc), you start to see where dislike might start.

Are you kidding? That's happening here, this isn't a phenomenon unique to the Middle East. I look at half-dressed 13 year old girls at shopping malls and think, "how in the world do their mothers allow them out of the house looking like that?"

But I'm not strapping explosives to myself and murdering everybody shopping at The Gap.

However, are you aware that the entire destabilised state of the present-day middle east is due almost entirely to British and US involvement?

Yes. Our endlessly meddling in the internal affairs of Iran since before World War II alone is horrible, and it has nothing to do with what's best for the Iranian people, it was initially about securing a supply line to the Soviet Union during World War 2, and after that, about fighting communist encroachment into the region. The Iranians were terrified of all of us. The Soviet Union annexed the northern portion of their country, and Imperial Britan scared the bejeezus out of them. The Americans propped up the Shah, who did a lot of good for Iran, but was also a brutal dictator in his own way. He just wasn't a communist one, so we propped him up until the Soviets weren't a threat, and then allowed him to fall in favor of the Ayatollah. I'm actually working on a fantasy novel whose plot revolves around a nation whose history parallels that of Iran since about 1920.

Throughout most of this century the US has waged an intensively invasive foreign policy, actively encouraging and supplying rebellions and terrorism, destabilising governments and economically ruining states, solely to secure supplies of cheap, plentiful oil.

This really got started because we needed a way to get supplies during World War 2. The ends may not always justify the means, but in this case, they just might. They even had a nickname for Iran during this period - "The Persian Channel" or the Persian Corridor or something like that.

This is not left-wing propaganda or make-believe - this is all documented history.

I know. I probably know more about Iranian history than 99% of the people in my country or yours.

FWIW, if you try to look this up you'll have a much easier time using non-US sources. US culture has practiced self-censorship (through a mixture of isolationist disinterest and active suppression) for years, and it's only recently become aware of it itself.

This information is all readily available in American libraries and has been for decades. I respectfully submit that your impression of American information suppression is based too much on what's on our television stations. Interested Americans have easy access to all the resources t

Re:go read history

[dgh]

Why? President Clinton mostly ignored them,

Flat out wrong. Don't forget that Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden with a cruise missile.

Also, and this is well documented, the Clinton administration told Bush that Bin Laden was the most serious threat to the US at the time. http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,6 12309,00.html It was Bush who ignored Bin Laden until September 11. Bush was and has always been too preoccupied with Iraq.

Clinton did not do a good enough job here, but Bush can not take his eye off of Iraq, even for more pressing matters.

Re:go read history

[maxpublic]

And, I ask you, why has there not been a single American civilian death on our own soil since 9/11? How hard would it be for just ONE al Qaeda sympathizer or sleeper cell operative to build a bomb and blow up the food court at a shopping ball? Or a zoo? An amusement park? A sporting event? A crowded bus? Why? NOT ONE. Not one in 4 years. There's almost 300,000,000 people in our borders, and NOT ONE OF THEM has done this. Why?

Because there is no grand, shadowy conspiracy of American-hating terrorists working on elaborate and devious schemes to bring down the U.S. The guys who destroyed the World Trade Center weren't particularly bright or cunning - in fact, they screwed up numerous times prior to the hijacking - it's just that our own intelligence agencies were even more incompetent than they were.

Our precious government is trying to get us to believe that there's a vast network of American-hating terrorists just waiting to be activated so they can descend into an orgy of death on the streets of U.S.A. Town. Right. Pull the other leg and I'll kick you in the teeth, asshole.

There are no 'terrorists'. Just psychotic losers who like committing murder. Some psychotic losers climb clock towers and start shooting people; others send bombs in the mail; still others pick a specific sort of person (e.g., children, red hair, whatever) to butcher. A very, very few manage to get together with other psychotic losers and work together to score a bigger body count, as if life were a Lovecraftian video game. But these aren't the 'terrorist' boogeyman the government made up to scare the gullible and the stupid; they're just lunatics who think killing is fun, no different than McVeigh or Bundy or Manson.

Criminals. The nastiest sort (barring, perhaps, the average politician) but still - just criminals. No need to get worked up about them anymore than we shit our pants after McVeigh. Anyone who does needs to attend "How Not To Be A Spineless Pussy 101".

Max

Re:go read history

[LKM]

I recently read a book that included some critical thinking along these lines to explain how benevolent philosophies like Socialism and Communism lead to brutal governments like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

I was wondering about that myself. I think I'll have to pick up that book. Thanks for the pointer!

Re:go read history

[stlhawkeye]

I was wondering about that myself. I think I'll have to pick up that book. Thanks for the pointer!

Another one along those lines is The Road to Serfdom by Freidrich Hayek. It's dated; it was written in the midst of World War 2, and it comes from the perspective of what passed for conservatism at the time, and it's a bit dry, but it's a very valuable book to digest.

Sharansky's book is a fast read and be forewarned; he's a Soviet Jew and his perspective is that of a nationalized Israeli on how to solve the problem of the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, he is appropriately critical of the mistakes made by his own government, as well as that of the United States, in the 1990's and even recently.

What I found very interesting about his book was his analysis of the Soviet Union and where its demise began. I really did reshape a lot of my ideas and political theory after reading his book.

Re:go read history

[ifwm]

Um, I don't think you and a few of your dorm mates constitutes "widely agreed"

More like "inacurrately suggested"

Re:go read history

[soft_guy]

Actually, I know a lot about the history of the middle east and Islam - and I do listen to the news. And, no I am not a Bush supporter. I am an atheist personally. My best friend is Iranian. In fact, he is a member of the Iranian royal family. His whole family was forced to flee because of the Islamicist takeover there. (They are Ba'hai, not Islamic.)

I also personally know a lot of people who are Islamic. Some of them are reasonable, but from others I've heard crazy racist ranting against Israel and Jews.

Given all that, in the environment we are in today (not during the crusades, or some other time), I think there are certain religious groups that are in fact dangerous to have around. Islam being one.

Why are you defending suicide cults?

Re:go read history

[soft_guy]

Yes, jail time and re-education.

And I agree that there are certain christian groups that could and should be outlawed. If you are advocating racism, committing acts of violence, etc. then your group is not one that should be around.

As to the comment about mormons, I am talking about now, not a hundred years ago. There may be some splinter groups that are not part of the main mormon church which should be outlawed if they are engaged in violence, etc. The main part of the morman church is non-violent today and should be left alone.

I think that reasonable people could regulate religion to make sure that groups are non-violent and not engaging in hate speech.

Re:go read history

[Politburo]

So far as I'm aware, there was only one high profile attempt in the years that followed, an attempt on New Year's Eve, 1999, to blow up LAX, which was foiled by the intelligence in place at the time.

There was also a plot against the NYC bridges and tunnels. I don't think this plan was as near to completion as the LAX plan (iirc they stopped someone near Seattle with explosives for LAX).

Re:go read history

[Serapth]

Again im not. Islam != Terrorist.

Thats pretty much the entire point of my earlier conversation. 99.9999% of Islamic people arent terrorists or in suicide cults ( or atleast were before the iraq invasion... that number may be more like 99.9998% now ). Just like the vast majority of Christians are murderers and war criminals. Dont judge a group by its zealots.
I think there are certain religious groups that are in fact dangerous to have around. Islam being one.
Frankly, right now President Bush and his religous views scare me alot more the Osahma's. Since he is such a dangerous man, should he christianity be done away with? Wasnt the unibomber catholic... wasnt just about every mobster from the 30's on catholic? Well... lets get rid of em! ( Hey, being agnostic... this isnt sounding like such a bad idea... :) ).
Zealots are zealots, regardless to faith. Oh and dont worry, I wasnt calling you a crazy racist( Again... another type of zealotry... )... if I got that impression from you, I wouldnt have responded to you at all. I was merely calling you ignorant! :)

Re:go read history

[88NoSoup4U88]

(1) They're busy dying in Iraq (2) Our new security policies after 9/11 have been successful on some level (3) They get to America and begin to live here and experience our country while planning their assault, and after experiencing freedom, stability, and economic success, their urge to blow themselves to smithereens or get arrested while trying to both other people up abates and eventually vanishes. Why destroy this? It's paradise compared to the disease-infested cess pools they came from.

(4) They wait another two years and *BANG!* they'll make another big attack.
Get your head out of your ass.

Re:go read history

[Dausha]

"Your life would be easier if you stopped watching Fox news. Al Queda's stated aims have always been "the expulsion of American Armed forces from the sacred sites of Islam [Saudi Arabia]". That's why OBL got followers. That's why they came after the U.S. It's a stupid, irrational reason, but that's religion for you."

Well, first of all, the U.S. has had military personnel in RSA since the 1950s. They have worked their to train the Saudi military. Is it a coincidence that UBL and al-Qeida started their jihadism after the 1991 cease-fire between Iraq and the Coalition Forces? We did not have troops in Mecca/Medina--sacred sites.

While I would concede that the U.S. presence in 1990-91 was abrupt, after we "got a clue" about the culture we did what we could to respect it (women stopped being allowed to drive, had to way abiyas, etc.). Americans are accused of being culturally-insensitive, but I would say no more than other cultures.

Anyway, it does not take Fox News to gain the grandparent poster's comments. Just an open mind.

Re:go read history

[Locke2005]

Only a meglomaniac with delusions of granduer that thinks he can become the new king of Saudi Arabia would kill random people... in other words, there are people whose world view is so twisted that they might have committed 9/11 attack no matter what the US did. Personally, I think that if they have a problem with the policies of Bush or Blair, then they should be attacking Bush or Blair, not killing random people who may or may not have sympathized with them before the terrorist act. Killing random people and making 99.99% of the people in the world your sworn enemy does not sound like a rational way to advance a cause to me. Only a madman could possibly beleive that random violence would accomplish anything.

Re:go read history

[adrianmonk]

Do you really, really, believe that Bin Laden decided to spend several years planning the 9/11 attack, sacrifice several people, kill thousand of innocent people just because he wanted, without a reason? Do you really be that terrorist are the "bad guy" that decides to kill random people

No, I believe that Bin Laden decided to do it because he's a fundamentalist religious wacko whose morality is horribly screwed up because of his beliefs. The irony is that religion is supposed to bring you closer to God, and that should make you a more moral person, but in cases like this, it causes people to totally lose it and start doing things that are not even consistent with their religion.

I was just thinking about this earlier. What is the rational motivation for terrorist attacks like this? Do the terrorists really expect Britian to capitulate? If they do, they have no knowledge of history. (They are forgetting one of the basic rules of fighting: know thine enemy.)

The terrorists can't rationally be hoping to actually motivate Britian to do what the terrorists want. In reality, all these attacks will do is motivate Britian to fight harder against the terrorists.

So what motivation does that leave? There is nothing constructive or practical to be gained by carrying out these attacks. To me, that makes it fairly obvious why it's happening. It's happening for one (or both) of the following two reasons:

1. The terrorists hate Westerners (non-Muslims a/k/a infidels), and they enjoy seeing them suffer. Thus, they are, in effect, carrying out these attacks for their own enjoyment.
2. These attacks make the terrorists feel good about themselves. Their beliefs tell them that in order to be a good person and feel good about themselves, they must fight for their religion. Thus, every infidel that dies is a sign that they are on the right track, that they are doing what God wants them to, and that they should feel good about themselves, and that God is pleased with them.

The bottom line is, their ideology tells them that Westerners are bad. Sure, some of this has to do with things the West has done (I'll not deny that Westerners have screwed over others, just like every nation does to other nations when given the opportunity). But (forgive the pun) the fundamental problem is not what Westerners have done, but who Westerners are. We aren't Muslims, and that's enough for fundamentalists to conclude that we have no value. It's sort of like "the only good Indian is a dead Indian", except that it's "the only good infidel (Westerner) is a dead infidel".

I'm not trying to excuse stupid, greedy, selfish, self-serving things that the West has done in various parts of the world. But, I am saying that even if we were squeaky clean in our actions, it still wouldn't be enough.

Re:go read history

[tade]

Hey, not all of us were on the *right side* during WWII. We had one of the greatest ideas, certainly good enough for a Darwin award as our government decided to try our luck and we attacked the Soviet Union after we lost a war with them only a year earlier. Yup, we had population of about 3 million and we thought that maybe we should expand a bit as it was getting crowded. Guess nobody can claim us cowards. Go Finns.

Re:go read history

[E 99]

Oh please, then what triggered 9/11?

Do you really, really, believe that Bin Laden decided to spend several years planning the 9/11 attack, sacrifice several people, kill thousand of innocent people just because he wanted, without a reason? Do you really be that terrorist are the "bad guy" that decides to kill random people?

It's not so much that he wanted to do it without a reason, it's that he wanted to do it and so developed a reason. His whole public life he's been either at war with someone or else searching out an enemy to go to war with. He's developed a religion that has no context outside of war.

He therefore has the kind of reason the comes out of hatred, which is the desire to kill people. Not the kind of reason that comes out of thought. The latter kind reason is always worth understanding, both in friends and enemies. The former kind is of no value or relevence whatsoever.

Hypothetically we could pull all our troops and embassies out of other countries and build a giant all around our country, but that's not the healthy thing to do. I think we have a duty to actively defend ourselves when attacked, which is what we trying to do.

Are the terrorists "bad guys" who just want to kill random people? Yes, that's exactly what they are. As said by one of the Al Zawahiri terrorists on a beheading tape, (and something similar on the Al Qaeda tape claiming responsability for the Madrid bombing) "as much as you love life, we love death." That's what evil is.

"Whoever finds [Wisdom] finds life...but whoever fails to find [Wisdom] harms himself; all who hate [Wisdom] love death." - Proverbs 8:35,36

Re:go read history

[s!mon]

God, what a blind asshole you are. bin Laden is a tyrant. Radical islam's plan for the rest of the world is his plan, and Afganistan before the U.S. invaded was a taste of it.

This statement sums up the rest of your argument: its a gross assumption based on your subjective beliefs and reinforced by your gut reaction.

If you believe that people should be executed for not espousing your point of view, such as it is, you're with bin Laden.

Doesn't this happen at abortion clinics?

Cave men like bin Laden are afraid of the world, much less their corner of it, opening up to things like literacy, commerce, free speech, and an improved quality of life in general.

Funny, UBL is actually a smart guy. Its a stretch to call somebody educated in the west a cave man. Now maybe his ideals are, but it doesn't mean that he isn't interested in literacy or improving the quality of life for other muslims.

But the U.S. is not the reason for the "tyrants" of which you speak, unless you're talking about the current Iraqi government

US is very much responsible for tyrants and in general, creating our own problems. Saddam used to have close ties to the US. UBL was provided training and weapons by the CIA. There are tons of examples out there.

The people klinging [sic] to power in the Soviet Union were also afraid because that [sic] also wasn't a part of their idea of paradise.

Huh? No, the Soviets were clinging onto their power for the same reason all people cling onto their power: they don't want to give it up!

Re:go read history

[mkcmkc]

I ask you, why has there not been a single American civilian death on our own soil since 9/11?

A very good question. Perhaps because that is not their goal. Rather, perhaps their end is best served by drawing us into a war on their territory, a war we cannot possibly win, and in which we will likely, unintentionally, kill a great many bystanders, thus furthering their cause.

Instead of assuming they're crazy, you can also try assuming that they're shrewd, subtle, and wiping the floor with us in a game we don't even understand.

Mike

Re:go read history

[CrayzyJ]

I don't live in a dorm.

thanks for playing. Let's tell him what he didn't win, Johnny.

Re:go read history

[geekee]

"Do you really, really, believe that Bin Laden decided to spend several years planning the 9/11 attack, sacrifice several people, kill thousand of innocent people just because he wanted, without a reason? Do you really be that terrorist are the "bad guy" that decides to kill random people "

Bin laden kills because he's a racist. He doesn't like Jews so he believes Israel should be destroyed and he doesn't like western culture, so he thinks American soldiers should not be in Saudia Arabia, even if invited by the Saudi govt.

Re:go read history

[soft_guy]

I was merely calling you ignorant!

I *don't* think that I'm ignorant about Islam. I have a minor in religious studies, I've read parts of the Korean, I know people who are islamic, I've read arabic/islamic news sources (translated), I've investigated it as a religion.

The fact is that I can't find a single islamic person who says Israel has a right to exist. The Korean is full of information telling people how to treat non-muslims (i.e. very poorly). Most islamics that I meet in this country give money to islamic "charities" that promote terrorism. Most christians do not do anything remotely similar. I'm reading that in England, muslim immigrants are demanding things like separate courts and separate laws for muslim defendents - and they are getting them too. In France, the muslims are a large enough part of the population to sway an election. I am very worried about islam in this country! Just as I would be if Nazism were becoming popular.

I am not that worried about Bush's religious views because he isn't religious, unless you count the worship of money as a religion.

The catholic church isn't telling people to become bombers or mobsters. Islam *is* telling people to become terrorists and to support terrorists and they are doing it in large numbers. Your statement of 99.99% of islamic people not being terrorists is plain wrong.

I also think certain christian groups should be outlawed. For example, groups that advocate violence against physicians or who have been involved in shootings and bombings. Also groups that oppose medical care and do not take their children to doctors when they need to should be shut down. This is not most christians - these are dangerous fringe groups.

Re:go read history

[Tesla Tank]

[i]It's[/i] [i]okay[/i], [i]we[/i] [i]understand[/i].

Re:go read history

[blueg3]

It's often said that the religious "edict" is more a ploy to bring people to his side. In fact, folks on both sides of the conflict use simplified, black-and-white religious arguments to justify a lot of what they do, but that's not the cause of their actions.

The U.S. is hardly the "most obvious target". It's the most dangerous for a number of reasons. All non-Muslim states, of which there are a lot, are obvious targets. The U.S. is a target because it's foreign policies has made it enemies in the Muslim world, not because it especially qualifies as "not Muslim".

The construction of this organization and the motivation of its leaders is traced back to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Just because they say it's a religious issue doesn't mean that's true.

Re:go read history

[Panda_McElroy]

If there's no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, why in the world would these terrorists be so upset about Iraq?

You said it yourself, these people are far from rational. No one knows if there were connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It's unlikely, though, since Osama Bin Laden disliked Hussein's secular govermnent. Also, Hussein viciously suppressed Islamic religous leaders.

This is not to say that they act randomly, of course. We've killed over 22,000 Arab people in Iraq. You're Osama Bin Laden: Gosh! How are you ever going to use this to your advantage and make the U.S. appear evil and anti-Islam?

Innocent people don't deserve this, and we are innocent. But our leaders aren't. Our leaders, past and present, are greedy and stupid, and that is a a large contribution to the cause of all this.

Also, why haven't the terrorists attacked since 9/11? The argument that it's because we're "winning" the "war on terror" is senseless. Our security policy, save Marshall Law, will never be tight enough to prevent a terrorist from coming into the U.S. and shooting someone. Hopefully it could one day stave off the larger attacks, though.

Maybe they prefer to be more deliberate, and wait, and implement larger attacks.

Re:go read history

[imgumbydammit]

To make points short for this post, the US is the sole reason why the US is hated by many parts of the world. The UK is the sole reason why the Middle East is divided up as it currently is by religious and ethnic based borders.

I'm not sure that I can agree with you on this. It's hard to know exactly what the real opinions are in such a large, unstable and heterogeneous population which is the Middle East. I remember that when the US became involved in Somalia, Aidid was able to mobilize mass support and outrage against the US by claiming that the Americans were there to force muslim Somalis to become Christian. Ignorance isn't all one way.

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).

This may be true to a certain extent, but don't underestimate how unstable most middle-eastern countries are (due to a large degree by the demographics changes taking place there). It general, I would simply assume that any power that gets involved in the ME will be attacked at some time or another, because some splinter of a faction of a radical ideology will find a reason to do so.

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.

I'm sorry, but I find both of those statements simply unconscionable.

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 might have missed something further up the node, so I'm not sure if you are interested in addressing the motivations of Al Qaeda exclusively, or if attacks by other similar and probably related groups qualify, but India has been subject to constant provocation by Islamic terrorist groups, including a daylight attack on the Indian parliament in 2001. And, yes, I know that the radical Hindus can be jerks too.

Because Al Qaeda is not anti-democracy, but anti-US and anti-UK foreign policy.

I'm not sure that a lot of the AlQaeda guys are very deep thinkers who are pissed off that they don't have a spot on the McLaughlin Group, so much as angry Westerner-haters who want to kill a lot of people, but hey I could be wrong. But what is true is that a deep feeling of resentment of the success and power of the West is behind a lot of their motivation. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it is something more visceral and racist than what I think you are describing.

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.

"If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon." Pre-WW1 Turkey (which is what you are essentially describing) and Pan-Arab nationalism (in the '60's? '70's?) were failures for good reasons: the ME has simply become too unstable to make this kind of an approach work. If it worked would it make the world better off? Maybe. I'm not sure that bigger is always better in geo-politics. And there's no way that it would resemble the EU (for better or for worse).

Do you believe Al Qaeda will start attacking China? Unless China gets involved in the Middle East and Israel, then the answer is no.

China has had it's own internal struggle against Islamic terrorists, e.g. in the Uighur region, but it hasn't been well-publicized.

Re:go read history

[paulrpayne]

So, what's your point? That Al Qaeda is justified in killing civilians? Or is your point just that you're smarter than everyone else? If your point is that we should expect our civilians to be killed because of our policy abroad, I don't think anyone would disagree with you. There will always be those who believe killing civilians is a proper method of dispute resolution. These people don't need to be listened to... they need to be stopped.

Re:go read history

[Hal_Porter]

No. Bullshit. They tried to knock over the World Trade Center in 1993 when Bill Clinton was president. Why? They bombed the USS Cole during Clinton's term. Why? They slaughtered hundreds at our embassies in Africa. Why? President Clinton mostly ignored them, why did they still want to get us? All because of Gulf 1? If there's no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, why in the world would these terrorists be so upset about Iraq?

Actually it's worse than that. Muslims didn't really have much to complain about US foreign policy up to that point. They'd helped the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, and stopped the Serbian genocide against Muslims in Kosovo. Plus they'd worked to get a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians, subtly moving to a more neutral role in the Arab/Israeli dispute post cold war.

Al Quaeda attacked anyway at the Khobar Towers, where the US responded by indicting people in an American court. And then bombed they the embassies and the US Cole. Only then did the US retaliate

Re:go read history

[Mjec]

Bin Laden, like so many before him, is using religion as a vehicle to push a political aim. Why? Because it's bloody hard to motivate people to kill themselves (or risk themselves) for politics. Much easier if there's a centuries-old book which you can exploit for your purpose. That way you only have to increase belief, not actually convince people of something in the first place.

Re:go read history

[RhettLivingston]

Al Qaeda and the many other organizations that are part of the general Muslim extremist organization are not anti-democracy, anti-US, or anti-UK. They are anti infidel. They fight because they believe that it is their god given responsibility to convert or kill all infidels until the world is one uniform Muslim society. Their other excuses are irrelevant because if they didn't have the ones they have, they'd make others. This is what is called an "irreconcilable difference".

As for your side note, the Chinese are infidels too. And they are already being attacked by and fighting these same extremists in their eastern territories. They've been far more ruthless at it than we have and done a far better job covering it up.

Re:go read history

[RhettLivingston]

But, it is about religion because religion is the base of his power. Power exists only in the presence of followers. His true motivations are irrelevant because he is irrelevant. If Bin Laden wasn't over that power base someone else would be. This particular power base will always find a leader with some reason, not necessarily genuine, to fight the "infidels". The power base must be changed. One way to do that is to give a political institution, democracy in this case, more power than the religious institution.

Re:go read history

[typical]

He thinks Christians and Jews are abominations and must be exterminated.

Having encountered one too many Southern Baptists who think that the entire non-US world is part of a vast conspiracy to "get" the US, I can't help but sympathize with the man here.

Rational people do not blow themselves up.

Rational people don't enlist in Delta Force, either. Guess we have a large number of nutcases shooting at and blowing each other up, eh?

(Problem is, one half of them is doing so on my tax dollar)

Re:go read history

[Shaper_pmp]

"Demonizing? You mean by calling people who blow themselves up in an effort to murder other innocent people "crazy"? Then yes, there's nothing quite like it."

Not specifically, since I also think religious fundamentalists (of any flavour) are crazy. However, the phrases "He had a reason, but it's irrational and insane... the motivations ... are incomprehensible to reasonable, logical thinkers". seems pretty dismissive. It was the "he's just nuts, we've done nothing wrong, we've just have to get rid of him (without any self-examination necessary)" angle that I was trying to object to.

Also, from the GP: "You're attempting to explain the actions of terrorists through logic. "We deserve it," for some reason. "We caused this. This is our fault, if we hadn't (done whatever), then they wouldn't have done this"" (implying this is bad).

Not to suggest for a second that America had done anything to deserve an atrocity like 9/11, but (poor analogy time) if a guy from down the block breaks into my house, screams imprecations at me, punches me in the head and legs it, I might wonder if I'd done anything to upset him. Especially if it's impossible for it to be a case of mistaken identity. Dismissing him as insane without trying to understand his motivations misses the point that I might very well have done something to deserve some retribution, even if his was over-the-top.

"(Cultural erosion is something) that's happening here, this isn't a phenomenon unique to the Middle East. I look at half-dressed 13 year old girls at shopping malls and think, "how in the world do their mothers allow them out of the house looking like that?""

I think you're missing a great deal of context, here. We're the ones causing that erosion. Sure, some branches of our culture might be moving faster than others (so you're mildly disapproving), but it's still christian/atheist/capitalist/scientific/western culture. It's got to be very different when it's a completely alien culture - imagine your young kids were eating brains, fucking on the sidewalk and murdering old people for fun - that's the kind of revulsion-level they're experiencing.

Once again, I'm not suggesting they're right to feel like this, but it is understandable. They may have "insane" axioms they're starting from, but the reasoning from there is perfectly comprehensible.

"But I'm not strapping explosives to myself and murdering everybody shopping at The Gap."

No, but (to take another example), Pro-Life campaigners(!) have murdered doctors. That's even more fucking insane, but you can understand the motivation (it just takes a complete lack of self-examination not to notice the hypocrisy).

"This information is all readily available in American libraries and has been for decades. I respectfully submit that your impression of American information suppression is based too much on what's on our television stations. Interested Americans have easy access to all the resources they want."

Fair play, and I didn't mean to suggest you couldn't do it - I meant you'd have an easier time of it, is all. You're right, I (lacking direct experience) do base my assessment on your mass-media. Unfortunately, that's the only place many of your countrymen get their information too, though. Thanks to the net, the mass media of other countries is also now available to them, as a counterbalance, for a lot less effort than leaving the house and conducting a library search - that was all I meant by it ;-)

"This is almost all legacies of the Cold War and fighting Soviet encroachment."

So that makes it alright?

"Pinochet is a classic example. America has a history of supporting a brutal dictator because the regime in question is anti-Soviet."

Pinochet's a great example - he was anti-communist, true. He violently deposed an elected Marxist government, and was propped up by the US

Re:go read history

[WindBourne]

Do you remember the "person of interest"? he has a multi-million dollar law suit against GWB/Ashcroft and I believe the gov..

Last I heard of, all evidence now points against a bio. company in Ohio (do you remember where the original militarized anthrax came from? Ohio). IIRC, the company was run by ex-military/republican types. May explain why almost all of the envelopes were sent to liberals.

However, once the evidence surfaced that is was the company, then the investigation submerged.

Re:go read history

[hesiod]

> I'm probably being really ignorant here, but what's the EEUU

I believe the Original Poster is spanish-speaking, and in spanish, The US is called Estados Unidos, abbreviated to EEUU. Never understood why it wasn't just EU...

Re:go read history

[hesiod]

> The main part of the morman church is non-violent today and should be left alone.

The main part of Islam today is non-violent, you jackass.

Re:go read history

[hesiod]

> I *don't* think that I'm ignorant about Islam
> I've read parts of the Korean
> The Korean is full of

Really... You've read the Korean? Which one? North or South? There are quite a few. Did he have words tattooed on himself or something? Maybe the Korean had the Koran (Quran) printed on his back in very small letters.

Re:go read history

[hesiod]

> Do you really think present-day Catholics should be blamed for the Crusades, and so on?

Do you think present-day Americans should be blamed for slavery? Many Americans feel guilt over it even though their grandparents hadn't been born at the time.

Do you think present-day Germans should feel guilty about the Holocaust? The very large majority of them were not alive (or at least of a responsible age) at the time, yet they have expressed shame over it

Sure, these are MUCH more recent, but at what point does someone no longer feel responsible for the past actions of their country or group? Or should it be remembered forever? Perhaps "remembered" is the wrong word, as it should always be remembered...

(I'm not fishing for any particular answers on those questions)

Re:go read history

[stlhawkeye]

"He had a reason, but it's irrational and insane... the motivations ... are incomprehensible to reasonable, logical thinkers". seems pretty dismissive.

Again, I misrepresented my opinion and ideas on bin Laden when I said that, and I corrected it in other parts of this thread.

It was the "he's just nuts, we've done nothing wrong, we've just have to get rid of him (without any self-examination necessary)" angle that I was trying to object to.

I did not say or imply that we've done nothing wrong. I said and implied that there are people who think the United States is completely at fault and deserves any calamity that befalls it.

Also, from the GP: "You're attempting to explain the actions of terrorists through logic. "We deserve it," for some reason. "We caused this. This is our fault, if we hadn't (done whatever), then they wouldn't have done this"" (implying this is bad).

Not to suggest for a second that America had done anything to deserve an atrocity like 9/11, but (poor analogy time) if a guy from down the block breaks into my house, screams imprecations at me, punches me in the head and legs it, I might wonder if I'd done anything to upset him.

Naturally, I'd wonder that, too. "What in the world motivates such an irrational response?"

Especially if it's impossible for it to be a case of mistaken identity. Dismissing him as insane without trying to understand his motivations misses the point that I might very well have done something to deserve some retribution, even if his was over-the-top.

I would be interested in understanding his motivations but not interested in excusing his behavior.

I think you're missing a great deal of context, here. We're the ones causing that erosion.

The proliferation of American pop culture garbage is beyond my control, sadly. I decline to participate as much as possible. Whenever our representatives in the States try to enact new laws to restrict "indecency" or remove profanity or nudity or whatever from TV, they're derided as bunch of stodgy crackpot Christian conservative assholes who want Americans humping through holes cut in bedsheets and only after reading the Bible.

As a big advocate of Enlightenment liberalism, I tend to agree with this characterization and oppose legislation on behavior such as that. The consequence, unfortunately, is what you've described: even more stodgy crackpot religious people elsewhere decide that we're the root of evil in the world. It's no win situation. I either sacrifice some of my liberty to my government to appease terrorist sor I sacrifice it to my government so they "save" me from the same terrorists. The common element in this choice is that terrorists are threatening to murder civilians on the grounds that we pay taxes to our corrupt government. And if that wasn't motivation enough, they'd find some other reason why slaughtering American civilians is justified by the Quran. That's the very definition of rationalization, which is what you do when your behavior is otherwise unjustifiable.

imagine your young kids were eating brains, fucking on the sidewalk and murdering old people for fun - that's the kind of revulsion-level they're experiencing.

That's what Arab kids are told. That Jews grind up children and use their blood to make matzo.

Once again, I'm not suggesting they're right to feel like this, but it is understandable.

Feeling threatened by and afraid of the encroachment of an alien and terrifying culture that is 180 degrees the opposite of your own is completely understandable. It's one of America's primary motivations for fighting communism for 60 years. As you wrly note below, that doesn't make it "alright".

They may have "insane" axioms they're starting from, but the reasoning from there is perfectly comprehensible.

Granted. Perhaps I characterized the wrong element of this debate as "in

Re:go read history

[rodrigo96]

This is about OIL and power, not religion. It's amazing how this main component of the equation is being left out by most posters. Both the UK and USA long to convert Iraq into de Mexico of the Middle East: an oil-rich territory with a complacent government, dominated by a corrupt oligarqy, populated by complacent people more preocupied in the latest Hollywood releases. Throwing religion into the equation only help to mud the waters more.

Re:go read history

[ben_rh]

*applauds*

Thankyou. That really needed to be said.

Re:go read history

[Shaper_pmp]

"Again, I misrepresented my opinion and ideas on bin Laden when I said that, and I corrected it in other parts of this thread."

Fair enough - I haven't read much else of this thread (esp. since we passed the 10 screen-fulls-per-post stage ;-)

"I would be interested in understanding his motivations but not interested in excusing his behavior."

That's all I'm trying to do, too - explain/investigate/understand the motivations without simply dismissing them out of hand.

I think part of the problem might be my use of the word "understandable". This was meant literally (as in "it is possible to comprehend"), not to excuse any action or opinion (as in "this is acceptable in the circumstances").

"That's what Arab kids are told. That Jews grind up children and use their blood to make matzo... Feeling threatened by and afraid of the encroachment of an alien and terrifying culture that is 180 degrees the opposite of your own is completely understandable. It's one of America's primary motivations for fighting communism for 60 years. As you wrly note below, that doesn't make it "alright". "

No, but it does make it "not entirely irrationally insane". ;-p

Swap "America" for "Terrorists" and "communism" for "western culture" and you've stated my position perfectly. ;-)

"Granted. Perhaps I characterized the wrong element of this debate as "insane." It's tough for me, as a classic liberal, to equate social evolution, de-taboo-izing human sexuality, and giving people freedom to determine their own destinies as being a threat to anybody except old school established totalitarian power regimes."

Indeed, and "organised religion" is about the oldest-school, most established and most totalitarian regime ever. It's existed for thousands of years, commands fanatical unquestioning obedience in sections of its following, is accountable to no-one, and often (may be read as being) violently xenophobic towards any other (rival) faiths.

"I will submit, however, that those people don't know most of this stuff either. I think your typical jihadist that is blowing himself to pieces at the Sbarro's in Tel Aviv is coming at this from a very strictly religious and somewhat brainwashed point of view...."

Granted, but when talking about The War On Terror do you really mean the brainwashed fanatic walking up to the checkpoint with bombs strapped to his chest, or do you mean the leaders, stretegists, handlers, brainwashers and the entire support network that allows them to function?

Take out the leaders and strategists and the threat they're capable of presenting crumbles for lack of resources, but take out all the suicide-bombers-in-training in the world, and they'll have entire camp-fulls more within months.

When talking about "the terrorists" I mean the leaders - the movers and shakers. True, the actual footsoldiers are often brainwashed/duped/fanatical/call-it-what-you-will, but they're more symptoms of the struggle than a cause in their own right.

"It has nothing to do with understandable and justifiable anger of the past transgressions of an imperial nation. That may be why bin Laden is doing this, but bin Laden hasn't yet blown himself up, has he?"

No, because he's the brains behind it. And I'd be very surprised indeed if OBL wasn't using exactly these arguments when "brainwashing" the troops. If you've ever seen a non-USA translation of an OBL broadcast, it's surprisingly intellectual and well-argued stuff. The guy's a monster, no doubt about it, but he can debate well, and he's got a good grasp of history and realpolitik.

And I was serious about the non-USA translation - several months ago I read the US translation of one of the OBL broadcasts, and dismissed him as a nutjob. Then soon after (by pure chance) I happened to see an al-Jazeera translation, and they were nothing alike. In the a

Re:go read history

[CrayzyJ]

ehhhhh.

Homeowner. married. Nice try though. clever wit.

Re:Because we all know

[Pep Strebek]

Nice straw man. Where did anyone mention surrendering?

Peace != Surrender

Re:What will the EU do?

[AntoniusBloc]

Okay, perhaps we're a little closer on this than I first thought. Yes, punish the terrorists -- obviously I agree here. Yes, also do not cluster bomb areas they are suspected of living in -- this is one of my biggest dissapointments with the U.S.-led war. We're so in love our air power and also with the post-Vietnam idea of zero casulties we were too reluctant to go house to house on the ground (although I believe that is what the US is now doing).

I disagree with your thought on disregarding politics. Terrorism is by its nature political and most terrorism needs state or quasi-state support to survive. Terrorists as individuals need to be rooted out but so does their network of support (both material and otherwise).

Comparing car acidents or smoking-related (not "caused", no causal link with tobacco has been established, only a correlation with excessive smoking) is to my mind a non sequitur.

Terrorists, if allowed to grow in power could do more damage than car accidents (the immediate physical impact could be devestating but beyond that there is the ripple effect in financial markets which have long term effects that impact everyong, not just the rich).

The war (and home security measures) has so far prevented another 9/11. By remaking Iraq into a modern free state it can also help the entire middle east and also help to alleviate many of the root causes for terrorism.

Also, it was by no means a rash "berserk" decision (not only did it take a long time before the US went to war but regime change had been US policy since Clinton in 1998)

Re:Terrible.

[ScentCone]

Anyone with half a clue expected another terrorist attack. Markets may adjust after a period of irrationality- it didn't take that terribly long after 9/11. Since the UK has been used to terrorism, they may get over this even faster.

I agree. It's just that for some people and sectors, this is a corrosive event that will have a ripple effect.

However what are the consequences of Karl's outing of Plame now being public knowledge? How will this affect relations with the intelligence community?

First, the indications are that Rove's interviews with the reporters in question were not when those reporters gathered Plame's identity. She was widely known to work for the CIA, so it's not like this was actually news at the time. More importantly, the intelligence community is hardly a homogenous entity (though it's more more tightly integrated now than it was even a couple of years ago). I know people in this line of work, here in the DC area, and they laugh about the whole Plame affair as being pretty much a tempest in a teapot. They find that her husband's political wranglings were pretty much out of line if he had any interest in keeping her out of the fray, and note that people like her are scarecly covert in the first place. The administration's relationship with the intel people is better than that of the previous administration, mostly because there is now a more clearly defined mission, complete with adequate funding to operate, and a mandate to actually hire and retain good people (rather than purge them and dumb it down, which was happeneing under the last team, and is one of the reasons we've had poor intel for the last 10 years - a situation which is slowly reversing itself).

Re:What will the EU do?

[Thomas Miconi]

The best method to rid the world of these insane fanatics is to kill them at the source. Put enough pressure on them at home so their supporters cannot afford to send the war overseas.

*sigh*

Of course. A bunch of fanatics use Moslem resentment to increase their power and launch deadly attacks against westerners and other Moslems, so what better thing to do than go and kick some (random and completely unrelated) Moslem ass ? Yeah, great idea. Funny how the rest of the world doesn't quite agree though - bah, let's just ignore them, we're the US, we've sent folks on the moon, we know better. Move off our way !

The worst thing is, I'm not exaggerating, it's exactly what happened and it's exactly what they (you) said !

Hell, the fanatics couldn't believe their luck when the US invaded Iraq - which, let me stress this again, had nothing to do with Al Qaeda *at all*. Now they can spread a simple message to Moslems throughout the world: "See, the infidels are invading us, join our holy resistance to defend your brothers !" Poor, undeducated people with little access to the media believe them, join them, are brainwashed into total submission and then used as cannon fodder for the fanatics (who of course are not interested in anything besides their own power).

Chechnia is a good example as well. Chechens wins their first independence war. Fanatics take advantage of the ensuing chaos to take hold in newly independent Chechnia, and wreak havoc in the region. Russia uses this as a pretext to reinvade and reoccupy Chechnia. A resistance movement emerges, composed on the one hand of the earlier independentists, and on the other hand of wahhabist fanatics. Unsurprisingly the leaders of the former have been decimated and their movement has dwindled, while the latter grew and thrived.

Let me make this clear: the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan (even the previous one, during the Soviet occupation - when the US thought it was a good idea to support the djihadists) did not create the fanatics. The fanatics were there long before. What these wars have done is simply to send them literally thousands of potential recruits by allowing them to present themselves as defenders of Moslems - when in fact they are only interested in expanding their own domination, and consider anyone who doesn't obey them as infidels (as can be seen currently in Iraq where the fanatics kill way more Iraqis than the US).

You and the current US administration are examples of people who simply don't get it. Your discourse is essentially: "Look, there are plenty of Arabs who don't like the West. They are bad guys. So let's go and beat up some bad guys and the problem will be solved !"

Well, guess what: no, it won't. Your 'reasoning' is akin to a child who wants to put out a fire, and he knows that you can put out candles by blowing them off - so he blows on the fire to make it go away.

You refused to accept the complexity of the world, and now we will all suffer the consequences of your simplistic worldview.

Thomas-
PS: Yes, I'm French. Flame me if you like. We were fscking right and every new event since the Iraq invasion confirmed it.

Why?

[Fantastic Lad]

Some one please mod parent too retarded to breed.

Care to back up that request with a reasonable answer to the poster's question first? --Anybody who has been paying attention for the past couple of years to the way bombings seem to always line up in very 'inconvenient' ways with political/media events knows that the poster you are calling retarded is making a very valid point.

There are certain groups within the U.S/British/Israeli power structure with plenty of means and motivation to perform these bombings on behalf of the people they want their various wars to continue against.

If people stop reacting just from their emotional centers and do some real thinking, the picture has a chance of becoming clear.

-FL

Re:Terrible.

[Peeteriz]

There will always be people who want to kill you. But there can be more or less of such people.
War in Iraq was 'sold' to us with the intention that it will help prevent such attacks. I think that now it is clear that it is not preventing anything. The decision that thousands of USA soldiers, thousands of Iraqi soldiers, and thousands of civilians have died for was based on a lie.

Re:G8 Protestors should be ashamed

[tracker1972]

There are plenty of places between London and Edinburgh to ship police from, and if the whole police/security service decided G8 ment anything happening elsewhere was less likely, I would be dissapointed and very, very surprised.

I don't think you can criticise well received and supported protest about a significant issue for another incident.

Tracker.

Re:jokes already?

[/ASCII]

Jokes are a good way to blow of some steam after a truly tragic event like this. Let people handle this in their own way.

You think they are sick?

[Colin Smith]

Our foreign policies have killed hundreds of millions through starvation, arms sales, wars. If, as an athiest there is even one religious concept I have come to believe in, it's karma. You don't fuck up people's lives without something coming back to haunt you.

Do I agree with terrorist tactics? No but I do recognise the desire for revenge. Against innocent civilians? The innocent civilians are the ones paying the subsidies and the military. For every right there are responsibilities, for every action there are consequences.

Re:You think they are sick?

[greenpanda]

That's a load of tosh.

Of course the victims were innocent. There are some pretty nasty people who live in London, but none of them use the tube, and are even less likely to use a bus.

So even if this was revenge, it was aimed at TOTALLY the wrong people. If they wanted to hit politicians or military personnel, they could have chosen many more suitable underground stations than the ones they did.

You say "for every action there are consequences". Are you therefore saying that, simply by paying their taxes these people all deserved what they got?

No. They did not deserve this.

100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq

[NotATerrorist]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A796 7-2004Oct28.html

Re:100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq

[JawzX]

I don't think the original poster is offtopic at all. If 100,000 innocent people in your country were killed in "collateral" damage wouldn't you be pissed? This is not to say I'm blaming Iraq, as a matter of fact they are probably the LEAST equiped to mount and organize an attack of this sort out of al the Islamic states, wether having ties to Al Q'aeda or not. (not it seems, that is untill the invasion gave them reason to have ties...) Iraq, wether ruled by a heinous dictator or not, was relatively MODERATE by Islamic fundamentalist (Al Q'aeda) standards, and as a result the general populous of Iraq was NOT largely in support of the actions of terrorists. The feelings of hoplessnes, loss and anger raised since the invasion has INCREASED popular support for terror activities in Iraq since 9/11. Although the place is in such a shambles and dealing with internal problems and mounting an "insurgency" (wouldn't you?) I doubt they had much, if anything to do with this event, but if you think the invasion of Iraq has helped quell terrorism you aren't thinking like an angry, irrational human being who's seen thier house, place of work, place of worship, etc blown up and or defaced and derided by an invading force of foreigners who can't be bothered to even learn enough of your language to tell you to "get down with your hands on your head" while arresting a memeber of your family for vauge and undefined reasons.

I'm not saying terrorism is a good response (it's not), I'm not saying it's an effective political tool (it just makes more people angry and hurt and irrational), but I'm saying people under stress do irrational things and the US and "The West" have done very little to address the (very) personal stress experienced by people in poor and/or politicaly opressive countries. Invading and dismantaling a country is NOT stress reducing. If there are drivers on the road in the USA who feel the need to rear-end people who cut them off in fits of irrational road-rage, what do you think thier unstable stress-monky counterparts are likey to do when they see hundreds of thousands of people like them (or they themselves) killed and left homeless (wether for thier long term good or not).

War of any kind breeds hate and irrational behavior. Others have mentioned the "two ways to win the win the war on terror" Kill 'em all, or get out. I think there needs to be a third idea mentioned, take some of the crazy wealth of our "Western" nations, spread it arround, with a good heaping portion of good-will and non-military aid and watch people suddenly get content and rational. Watch dictatorships and radical fundamentalism dry up as people find fewer and fewer things to be angry about. Watch them fix little problems, or things that have been on the back burner (like AIDS, Global Warming, and the Impending Energy Crisis) instead of devoting thier time to being mad the person next-door.

Never underestimate the power of a decent standard of living.

Four bombs, not seven

[iconara]

There has been four bombings in London this morning, not seven or six as previously reported. The confusion seems to be caused by one of the bombs affecting both Liverpool Street Station, Moorgate and Aldgate East stations, which are close and all were used as exits by survivors and injured. All are in east central London.

The other underground bombs were at Tavistock Square (near King's Cross Station in north central London) and Edgware Road (northwest central London).

The bombed bus was near Russel Square in central London, although different media report different locations, all in the vicinity of Russel Square. Russel Square is also close to Tavistock Square.

map of locations

Re:Fucking Animals

[MirthScout]

Hmmmm... I'm not gonna say I agree with everything the US does or even the rationale used in many cases because its such a mixed bag, but it seems to me the radical nut cases in the middle east have been killing in the name of religion and hatred for much longer than the "War on Terrorism" (sic) has been going on.

Radical Wakkos (in this case assumed to be Middle Eastern) are the ones that are keen on wiping out people who disagree with them.

GP and many others are keen on wiping out people that are trying to wipe them out.

Big difference.

What's the real answer? I don't know but blaming people for striking back against the criminal element that are terrorists doesn't help.

Peace?

[jscotta44]

Right. You achieve peace by acceding to the demands of any who wants to rule your life. You can just become their slave. Then they won't bomb you. Yep, good idea. Wait, isn't being a slave supposed to be a bad thing? Hmmm. Maybe that isn't the answer either. Maybe you should wake up. Some people are just evil and like to rule others. History is rife with examples. You don't have to do anything wrong to be attacked by people who want power. It is your choice how you respond. I choose to fight back.

Re:Peace?

[toddestan]

Maybe you should wake up. Some people are just evil and like to rule others. History is rife with examples. You don't have to do anything wrong to be attacked by people who want power. It is your choice how you respond. I choose to fight back.

Maybe you should wake up. The reason these people attack is because they are "fighting back" against the west which they view as evil because the west is trying to rule them for their own profit. The best thing to do would be to get out of the Middle East and leave them the hell alone to fight amonst themselves.

Re: Power motive

[greyparrot]

Whenever there is an opportunity, gang-bangers of all persuasions try to take advantage to increase their edge. Using Islam or Christianity as an excuse to bully other people isn't all that different from drive-by killing people who are wearing the wrong gang colors, plus any bystanders. It happens all over the world, in the US as well.
Most people realize they are nothing special, but some of them feel that they must make themselves feel special by pushing other people around in some manner. The more ambitious, sociopathic, and maybe charismatic go further. They are still nothing, but now they have 15 minutes of fame in their little circle of fellow fanatics.
It's no accident that they also treat women badly, even in their families. Bullies are like that.

10:00 EDT, casualty update

[caveat]

cnn.com: "U.S. sources say at least 40 dead...Four explosions in London's transport system have killed at least 40 people..."

Probably going to just keep climbing *shakes head*

Re:Whine on harvest moon

[orion41us]

I am an American - and also voted for Bush both times, and as far as I can tell you are a fucking prick - I must be the only one that feels that One life lost to terror is one life too many. Our prayrs are with you London!

But not at this level of carnage.

[MtViewGuy]

The standard modus operandi of the Provisional IRA is usually announced a blast then the blast occurs, and usually one bomb at a time.

Given the fact the attacks all happened in a very close time period and the terrifying carnage of 45 dead and over 1000 injured (according to Sky News the last I heard) is more the modus operandi of al-Qaeda--a group known for doing spectacular terrorist attacks.

Re:What will the EU do?

[halber_mensch]

Naturally, militant totalitarianism is the only way to spread democracy.

I mean, how can we expect morality, freedom and liberty to spread to that region if we don't kill everything?

Re:First Post

[MartinG]

It really depends what you mean by an Al Qaeda group.

This is a previously unheard of group who happen to have the words "Al Qaeda" in their name. They are not a part of the group called "Al Qaeda"

Remember that literally "Al Qaeda" simply translates as "The Base." I understand that it is common for Islamist organisations of various type to use the work "base" in their name in a similar way to how we use the word "foundation"

Imagine there was an English speaking terrorist group called "The Foundation" There would be worry amongst non-English speakers whenever you mentioned any "The Foundation for ......." type names.

Re:It's the old saying. . .

[ILoveFreedom]

Shadow Government? That's a new one! Go over your 3 points above on Terrorists! 1. "Heart Swelling Belief" that their religion allows killing of innocent people. 2. Desire to hate those who don't conform to their beliefs and religion, hate those who are better off then them, hate those who don't believe in their ideologies, blame everything else that is wrong in the world for their killings. 3. So deep in their own "ideologies" that they recruit others to die for them! They recruit others who are less off then they are and give these poor suckers money and belief that they will sit next to "Allah" when they commit suicide bombings. Shadow Government please! Oh one more thing - Islam preaches that one should not kill another muslim. Hmmm.... all the bombings in the middle east... Fantastic Lad - what's so fantastic about you?

Re:Terrible.

[rsynnott]

Fortunately, I live in a civilised country, where we don't torture people. To be honest, I doubt the police have the expertise or equipment.

Yes, of course they were members of the general public. That doesn't warrant retaliation against other members of the general public in Mecca, you stupid person.

Re:What will the EU do?

[perly-king-69]

That's right. They gave Osama bin Laden training, guns, bullets and bombs to fight a war of attrition against the nasty Soviets. Then the Soviets became friends with America, and by turns Osama became their enemy. And they sold Mr Hussein as many chemicals as he liked to kill his own people and those in Iran. That really pissed of the Iranians. And then the Americans learnt what the phrase 'What goes around, comes around' meant.

Re:What will the EU do?

[XPACT]

Well I gues you keep forgetting that AQ and simular organizations were founded with the help of US back in the '60es to fight the Russia and the communist regime.

Thoughts and prayers

[jrexilius]

I am sure much of the slashdot community meant to offer their thoughts and prayers (of whatever type) to the people and families hurt there rather then bicker about politics.

I personally feel a great deal of sorrow and hope that some lives can be saved by medical staff there.

Re:Fucking Animals

[Aardpig]

Let this be a lesson for Londoners and the rest of the world that terrorism can strike anywhere, and appeasing them will only make them stronger.

Londoners like me learned this years ago, after repeated bombings by the IRA -- ironically, a terrorist group lent a large degree of support by the USA.

Noam Chomsky has pointed out that the USA is the largest exporter of terrorism in the world. While I love the USA greatly, I also agree with him.

Re:Terrible.

[SeekerDarksteel]

You're arguing a point that I'm not arguing. If you want to argue that invading Iraq did nothing to help prevent things like this fine. I've only been arguing against the claims that this incident happened because we invaded Iraq.

motivation for kablooie

[Log from Blammo]

Iraq, in Gulf War 1. Though Bin Laden had no love for Saddam Hussein, he didn't take kindly to all those non-Muslim Americans stationed semi-permanently on his beloved Arabian peninsula. Though I think he also took offense to the US's puppeteering of Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, and its unconditional support of Israel, especially in the UN arena. Also, when he was a child, he had to compete with 100 siblings for his father's love.

Re:motivation for kablooie

[carlos_benj]

Also, when he was a child, he had to compete with 100 siblings for his father's love.

Great! Now we're exporting our lame excuses for why we're not responsible for our own behavior....

Re:motivation for kablooie

[Log from Blammo]

That part was a joke. I was going to say he was scarred by that time Uncle Sam parachuted into his bedroom and kicked his favorite puppy, but it was both unbelievable hyperbole and not really all that funny anyway.

Re:motivation for kablooie

[SomePoorSchmuck]

Great! Now we're exporting our lame excuses for why we're not responsible for our own behavior....

Nowhere in the original comment does the author say "...therefore bin Laden is not guilty by reason of poor parental attachment".

It's not unreasonable to look at an important situation from every angle in order to achieve greater understanding. Know Thine Enemy is a standard rule of war. Whatever political axe you may have to grind against the idea that humans have motives which can be explored and explained is not applicable to this discussion.

Re:motivation for kablooie

[ifwm]

Aside from which, muslims aren't really keen on dogs.

As an aside, that alone is enough reason for me to disassociate with them. My dogs have always been awesome and added immensely to my life.

Re:motivation for kablooie

[carlos_benj]

Nowhere in the original comment does the author say "...therefore bin Laden is not guilty by reason of poor parental attachment".

And my reply doesn't say that the author made that statment. Besides, you generally don't hear people say, "...therefore I am not responsible for my actions" either, but they drop the excuse in hopes that you'll dismiss their behavior when you realize how rough they've had it.

Re:motivation for kablooie

[SomePoorSchmuck]

And my reply doesn't say that the author made that statment. Besides, you generally don't hear people say, "...therefore I am not responsible for my actions" either, but they drop the excuse in hopes that you'll dismiss their behavior when you realize how rough they've had it.

So it appears you agree with me that the author is not attempting to use the "abuse excuse" in this case, and that your comment is therefore only barely and tangentially relevant to the issue of bin Laden's motive(s).

Different reactions

[famazza]

Its really interesting to see international reaction to this event. While most countries send condolences to the families, US president, GWBush, and Israeli Foreign Minister, SShalom, is claiming punishment.

It becomes even more clear the real motivation of such attacks.

Re:Different reactions

[Mindjiver]

Yes, blame the jews. That will do it.

Re:Different reactions

[famazza]

Yes, blame the jews. That will do it.

I'm not blaming the jews. I'm blaming the mutual violence.

I know jews that don't worth their own pants, but I also know jews that deserves my own eyes to them. The same happens to all other religions.

The point here is not about religion, it's about attitude.

Re:you miss one!

[GypC]

What, a napkin?

Yes, thank you.

I was frothing for a moment there, wasn't I?

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[virve]

If they cannot find somewhere else to go then they should be detained until they go, I would not want to send anyone to their deaths, but I don't see why we should provide open access to the country until people leave.

Well put.

A sizable part of the 9-11 terrorists had either lived or was living in the West (Germany) when they committed their attacks. The Madrid attacks were perpetrated by Moroccans living in Spain. Britain seems long to have thought itself safe from terrorism of the islamic variety by being soft on various islamic extremists (Finsbury Park mosque).

--
virve

Re:What will the EU do?

[J. T. MacLeod]

How about just outlawing something as arcane, ignorant, and hateful as religion? Religion's at the heart of almost all violence these days (note that George Bush is an Evangelical Born Again Christian, thus the slaughter in the Middle East).

I'm sorry, I missed that passage in my Bible where it tells me to "slaughter Muslims". Could you kindly point me to it?

(Never mind the net drop in death after ousting the Taliban and Saddam.)

Comments

[fdiskne1]

I just can't believe some of the comments I'm reading about this. Someone saying the people responsible for this should be killed is rated "Troll" or "Flamebait"? Others saying that WE are responsible for these bombings because of the war on terror? Others saying the people who did this should be slapped because they don't want to kill them. Do you really think a slap will stop their murders? It won't. Nothing will stop them until they are dead. I'm sick of everyone saying how we just need to understand these people, we need to treat them better, we need to stop offending them. How about if they just treat us better. How about if they stop offending us? How about if they stop murdering us? With the Islamic group that posted on their web site that they are responsible for this, arrest every member. They just admitted they are guilty of murder.

Re:Comments

[Frostalicious]

Understanding your opponent is critical in any conflict, if only to learn how to kill them better. That is not so shocking. If the extent of your analysis is "they are evil terrorists" you are only crippling your own efforts.

Re:Comments

[Robocrap]

While at first I wondered why your comment was rated "insightful" I now understand that it was probably rated as such to highlight the sort of mentality that's brought us to where we are today.

To illustrate, just look at how easily your words can be put into the mouths of those who have attacked us in the past-- read the following from the perspective of an incensed Iraqi considering hostile action again the American people: Do you really think a slap will stop their murders? It won't. Nothing will stop them until they are dead. I'm sick of everyone saying how we just need to understand these people, we need to treat them better, we need to stop offending them. How about if they just treat us better. How about if they stop offending us? How about if they stop murdering us? With the US Military agency that posted on their web site that they are responsible for this, arrest every member. They just admitted they are guilty of murder.

See how easy that was? Now understand that your line of thinking is the same as those who you despise. Looking for higher ground? Try the sort of understanding, better treatment, and dialogue that all killers, both military and otherwise, rarely resort to.

short soundbite version

[Log from Blammo]

War on terrorism? War *is* terrorism!

Re:This was innevitable

[tweek]

Show me where I said they WEREN'T Iraqi.

Al-Quaeda isn't a nationality. It's a religious affiliation. My point was that Iraqi's are targeted by Al Quaeda as much as Westerners are which blows the argument that they are trying to protect Iraqi's out of the water.

Faster your seatbelts

[zquirp]

I will bet that within the next 48 hours someone will find a way to blame Iran for this. "Secret Organization Group of al Qaeda of Jihad in Europe". give me a break. Wouldn't one of the goals of a secret organization be to remain secret?

Re:Faster your seatbelts

[rbarreira]

Geez, if that happens... It'll be "funny" as hell, do you think they would dare to be that obvious? Given the letargy of the public in general, they probably could get away with it...

Re:Faster your seatbelts

[rbarreira]

Well, a good way to check out when this starts to happen is to use this search.

For now, all that comes up is this, a warning that this will possibly be used to justify an attack to Iran.

Re:Faster your seatbelts

[rbarreira]

I've thought better about this, and it wouldn't make much sense to attack Iran now... Damn, they haven't even solved their problems in Iraq!

So maybe the discovery of the relation between this terrorist attacks and Iran will only be done in a few months, or more... but some people seem to think it will end up being done :(

Whatever it takes??

[IcyNeko]

What about peace? And an end to the American mentality of being the international babysitters?

America's been meddling in other countries' affairs for far too long. We attack and we send an "occupying force" in, then set up a remote base. And if that doesn't work, then our CIA spooks take care of any resistive leaders.

For instance, in WW2, the Americans offered Chiang Kai-shek arms and munitions to fight the Communists. The only provision is that the Americans would be allowed to set up a few bases in China and that the Chinese would be forced to buy some American goods. Chiang Kai-Shek gave McArthur the finger, and McArthur instead handed the same weapons to the Chinese, whom at the time were getting weapons from the Russians. Later on, when China and US were in some rather nice agreements, China decided it wanted the main voice in teh security council of the UN. When Chiang Kai-Shek refused to give up the seat, US sent CIA Spooks to kidnap Chiang Kai-Shek from his own house and threatened to kill him if he didn't relent his argument.

We trained Bin Laden. We trained every major terrorist out there, usually during a war to fight for our cause. And when we piss them off and then try to destroy them??

America needs to butt out of other countries.

WHAT HAPPEN

[JPickard]

SOMEONE SET UP US THE BOMB

Re:WHAT HAPPEN

[JPickard]

Perhaps even sicker given the fact that my girlfriend was on the tube train from Aldgate East to Kings Cross just 5 minutes before the first bomb.

The bus exploded outside the window of where she works.

Looking on the bright side, at least she gets tommorow off work.

mad

[JohnLeFucker]

Live just around the corner from King's Cross, just gone 4 a little bike-ride, fookin maddness out there, loadz'a people on the streets (walking everywhere). There is a strange party atmosphere, people walking in the middle of the road. The city is completly locked down, can't get past Euston Road (funny smell there). Everyone is looking at everyone else with suspishous eyes. Get a funny feeling when riding past buses.

Re:What will the EU do?

[perly-king-69]

Hint: The WTC atrocities happened about 20 years after the beginning of this sorry state of events...

To put it language you might understand...it was 'A New Hope', not 'The Phantom Menace'

Religion the heart of it?

[4iedBandit]

How about just outlawing something as arcane, ignorant, and hateful as religion?

So you think that getting rid of religion will make people get along with each other? Getting rid of religion will get rid of hate? Will it get rid of envy?

I hate to burst your bubble, but just becuase people use religion as the excuse doesn't make it the cause. People have been hating each other for ever. People use religion as the excuse because it makes them feel justified, even good, about killing others. You think that if you get rid of religion people won't find some other way to feel good about hating and killing?

Someone who has more of something will always be envied by someone who has less. Some of those with less are willing to do anything to get what they don't have, or at least bring down anyone who isn't like them. Some of those with more will always look for ways to flaunt what they have and repress those with less.

Why did the Chinese invade Tibet? Was religion at the heart of that? When was the last time Buddhist Monks went on a crusade to slaughter anyone who wasn't Buddhist?

Religion as the cause? Correlation is NOT causation.

Re:you miss one!

[fuzzybunny]

Ah right. Here you go then.

(bravely handing GypC a napkin to show I'm not a coward)

Bushenstein

[thelizman]

Yeah, I was staring at Dubya standing behind Blair during the press conference this morning and getting a creepy vibe. Crashing his bike into that Scotsman apparently left him with a few cuts and bruises on his face, which I'm sure the makeup artists worked on. (The Scot may have a sprained ankle. We need to keep Dubya off the Mountain Dew, apparently.) Not to mention that Bush never did a good job with his game face. If he was pissed, you could see it in his face. If he was saddened, you could see it in his face. I'm glad he's my President, but it'll be a cold day in hell before I invite him to be my poker partner.

Re:This was innevitable

[stanmann]

Actually, the 9/11 attack(s) happened during an extended tenuous ceasefire within the Iraq War.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Peeteriz]

"The war (and home security measures) has so far prevented another 9/11. By remaking Iraq into a modern free state it can also help the entire middle east and also help to alleviate many of the root causes for terrorism."

Allow me to disagree.
I believe that terrorism coming from Iraq could be prevented much better through non-war means (spies, special forces) than this questionable war.

Afganistan was covering known criminals, Syria and Lebanon have done such things - but I haven't heard Iraq ever being seriously accused for it.

Comparing terrorism to car accidents is important - it puts the things into perspective. In reality, in real hard terms, the damage terrorists do is disproportionally small when compared the resources spent on terrorism.

By throwing a billion dollars at health care, you will save lives and increase the well-being of your people.
By throwing a billion dollars at police patrols, you will save lives and increase the well-being of your people.
By throwing a billion dollars at fighting terrorism, you will (IMHO) achieve much less.

You cannot force a democracy suddenly. I don't see "remaking Iraq into a modern free state" as succeeding, I feel that the current anarchy is worse for everybody (civilians, neighbouring countries, USA, Europe) than it was during Husein's reign post-Gulf war.

Re:Fucking Animals

[kevinbr]

Society? Society does not condone, all societies have minorities that are fanatics. The world was horrified when earlier US Society seemed to condone hangiing black men from trees, and raping black women.

You of course in your ignorance love to HATE, so you ignore the mote in your own eye and stoke you hate on the wrongful actions of some men, all the while having no f**ing clue about how much a Muslim man loves his family and friends ( clue more that you love your fellow man - your hate seems to drive your thought processes)

No society is composed of 100% animals. There are always bad seeds.

You in your ignorance do not represent all of your society just some of it.

Found on Fark...

[revscat]

This was written by Warthog on Fark. I hope he doesn't mind.

As someone who on Sept. 11 watched the plane hit Tower 2 with his own eyes, and then almost lost his wife when the south tower fell, I can tell you in my experience that the first emotional response to such a terrible sequence of events is shock and numbness, followed by sadness, followed by rage. Rage tends to hang about the longest, but is the emotion to be most concerned about. Don't let the powers-that-be use the terrible events of today as an excuse to keep you afraid, or deprive you of even one bit of your liberty. It simply isn't worth it, and will never be. Grieve for the lost, comfort the wounded, and support those who are following orders over seas, but please, please resist the temptation to allow yourselves to sink to the level of the terrible people who did this.

The Ghandi responce

[TamMan2000]

If fighting terrorism triggers terrorism, how do you stop it?
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:The Ghandi responce

[Have Blue]

After the bully punches you. You stand back up, stick out you chest, and look at him, waiting for him to hit you again

That only works if the bully wants you to submit to him. If he just wants to beat your face in, he's going to keep swinging.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[awhelan]

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...


You do a good job justifying the bully analogy, but the analogy itself is very flawed. First of all, bullies opress their victims and intimidate them with greater size and power. Terrorists are more like mosquitos than bullies, desperately trying to take little bites, and usually causing much more irritation than damage. (*usually*... I guess 9/11 was like being bitten by a west nile mosquito.) Second, the only modivation of the bully is attention. This is certianly the main modivation of terrorists, but not the only one. They religiously believe that killing Brits/USAsians/etc is something with devine approval. We aren't dealing with a bully at all here, we're dealing with a less powerful, but deranged hateful army of psychopaths. If we rebuild and simply let them hit us again, they most certianly will!

Re:The Ghandi responce

[Gravedigger3]

im sorry that is the worst analogy i have ever heard. This isn't taking a punch this is people's lives. What happens if you stand up to a bully? Does he go away forever and rethink his ways? No he goes and picks on someone else. You guys kep saying "Just rebuild bigger towers in their place" and "just take the punch". Im sorry but as someone who lost a friend in 9/11 that is not the attitude i want my country to take. That ghandi style attitude may seem noble and wise but they would just realize that we are pussies and they would walk all over our ass.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[deaddrunk]

The Gandhi analogy is a bit of a crap one since Gandhi actually won. You also might want to note that the British considered him a terrorist.

You can beat violence with non-violence, that's how the British government finally ended 30 years of Irishmen blowing up our cities.

Not by carpet bombing innocent civilians in Belfast (and creating new terrorists as a result) but by negotiating a compromise that now has a lot of bickering but very little violence.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[crotherm]

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...

No, you kick the bullies arse.... Otherwise you are leaving him to bully some other unfortunate kid who might not have the resources or gumption to stand up to it.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[WhiplashII]

It also doesn't work if he is using you to show off to his friends - I think a lot of terrorism can be attributed to that.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[zardo]

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...

Haha, you obviously never got in a fight. The best thing you can do is go down in glory fighting with the bully. The next day you get pats on the back from all of your peers, and you come out on top in your mind, you don't go through the rest of your life asking yourself "Why didn't I just try to beat that bully? Why?". If you stick out your chest, you are asking for another slugging, what the bully wants you to do is turn tail and run. That is the worst advise I've ever heard. Kids don't listen to him.

Now it would be a sick world if we were to somehow, miraculously, LOSE the war on terror, and the rest of the world jeers at us the next day at school. Hey, isn't that the world we live in? Why, I think it is!

Re:The Ghandi responce

[Mutilated1]

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...

Bullshit.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[bluprint]

Hmm...my experience has been different. All the bullies I've ever run into will continue to beat the crap out of you. If, on the other hand, you were to hit back, and harder, they would tend to stop, or if a fight ensued, at least not start a fight on another day.

But that's just my experience. Bullies, by definition, like to pick on the weak (like most criminals). If you demonstrate strenth, they will find an easier target.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[bluprint]

Incidentally, Ghandi had help of a different nature. A man he apparently referred to as "patriot of patriots". Ghandi's non-violence brought attention to India, but the destabalization of the British empire, as a result of WW2, along with an active military/violent independence movement within India had a large impact in phycially removing Britain from India and the subsequent independence of India.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[vandit2k6]

Maybe u should be a politician man.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[ifwm]

With all due respect, you've never taken on a bully in your life and it is obvious. Otherwise you'd realize you'll just keep getting kicked in the nuts until you stop them.

Save your ridiculous, unrealistic, inaccurate analogies. Arguing by analogy is the province of idiots.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[TamMan2000]

With all due respect, you've never taken on a bully in your life and it is obvious. Otherwise you'd realize you'll just keep getting kicked in the nuts until you stop them.


I was on our junior engineering technocial society challenge team in highschool, my subjects were math and physics.

I was on the speach team.

I was in the marching band.

I was on a state champion quiz bowl team.

I was 6'1" and 115 pounds (I am much bigger now).

I have a big mouth.

Do you really think I never had to deal with bullies?

I suspect maybe you dealt with them, but you never tried the stratagy I put forward? I can tell you that I was no fun for the bullies to pick on, they love the fear in your eyes, I didn't show it to them. Once they figured that out, I was left alone.

You don't know me, don't pretend that you do.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[TamMan2000]

Haha, you obviously never got in a fight. The best thing you can do is go down in glory fighting with the bully. The next day you get pats on the back from all of your peers, and you come out on top in your mind, you don't go through the rest of your life asking yourself "Why didn't I just try to beat that bully? Why?". If you stick out your chest, you are asking for another slugging, what the bully wants you to do is turn tail and run. That is the worst advise I've ever heard. Kids don't listen to him.

I assure you I have (though not for the last 12+years).

when you stick your chest out and ask for another, the bully ussually does nothing. You are right though the bully does want you to run, but in a close second is the paniced look in your eyes while you are swinging at him. They just want to see fear, deny them that, and they will leave you alone.

I actually tried your method a couple times before standing proud. I assure you the later was more effective in preventing future violence. Also, the one time I did get a second slugging while standing proud (never got a third, unless I was trying to hit back), the bully got ridiculed for weeks over the ordeal by his peers (I think I even saw him with a black eye)...

Re:The Ghandi responce

[pintomp3]

actually, i've heard the bully analogy used to describe this situation, only it was the US who was called the bully.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[ThaReetLad]

welcome to my friends list. Top answer.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[ThaReetLad]

we're not talking about pacifism, were saying no large scale retaliation. We'll quite happily stand stong against their actions and provide a good defence, which may result in killing people who try to attack us. We're not, however, into pre-emptive attacks, especially without near perfect intelligence. The kind of wide ranging military attacks are counter productive, but small scale special forces ops may well be the right approach.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[RhettLivingston]

We were hit several times before the twin towers and didn't respond in any credible way. By your logic, the twin towers should have never been hit.

In fact, these aren't bullies. Bullies have no agenda other than too bully. If you are not Muslim, you are an infidel. These so-called terrorists have pledged to either convert or kill you in the name of their God. They have been fighting this war for over a thousand years and aren't going to stop now if we just take it on the chin.

I say "so-called terrorists" because, though their tactics are that of terrorists, that is merely the tactic of the day. There have been many others in the past and will be others in the future.

Taking it in the chin will do and has done no more than cause these guys to take more and more aggressive punches. When you have decided that your enemy does not have a right to live on this planet, you see it as laughingly stupid when they are so arrogant as to ignore you and take it on the chin and you joyfully kill with less concern as to your own safety. After all, your job has become oh so much easier.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[Muttley]

One could argue the abatement of violence in Northern Ireland is due to EU subsidies and cashflow into the country. Removing poverty is a good way to end violence, however generational hatred and intolerance still remain.

But it's a lot better than it was, and I don't think it's got much to do with British 'non-violence'.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[RhettLivingston]

You're right, its not about the crusades, it started long before that. Even then, the crusades were at least initially only a response to their expansionist invasions which were driven by the written policies of their religion. And the only reason they want you to leave them alone is that it makes their Koran commanded expansionist agenda easier if you don't resist.

You sir, were apparently born blind and deaf in addition to your cowardice. Too bad you'll probably never look back to see if there was a reply to your anonymous attack.

Re:The Ghandi responce

[deaddrunk]

It was the current government building on the work of the previous one that got the warring parties to the negotiating table. They didn't use any violence to achieve this aim and now Northern Ireland is largely peaceful. Yes the EU subsidies have gone a long way to remove the poverty of the province but it was a willingness to meet the terrorists and thrash out an agreement that ended their campaigns not bombing civilians as seems to be the standard response nowadays.

Chronology supports something else.

[Fantastic Lad]

Your chronology is out of alignment; 9/11 happened before the Iraq war, not the other way around. Seems like people like you are so intent on bashing America and the Bush administration that their surreptitious alteration of the facts is not below them.

A False Flag attack is an ancient and well-understood tactic, and it works really well because the majority of any population can be counted to fall for it every time. --People would rather believe in a comfortable lie which doesn't leave them smudged with guilt rather than look at the facts staring them in the face.

Why was there no proper investigation into 9/11? Why do NONE of the facts line up with the official story? Why was there so much fishy bullshit surrounding the event? (A terrorist passports found sitting on top of the smoking rubble pile?) Why was even the pantomime of an investigation hindered at every step by the Bush administration? Why were there dancing Israeli spies video-taping 9/11? Why, why, why. . ?

The answers are ugly and entirely possible. Means, motive and opportunity all held by the U.S./British/Israeli Shadow Governments. Black-Ops are well funded for a reason! But everybody just bends over backwards to look the other way at over-simple black & white explanations.

The fiction of the 'Middle Eastern Terrorist' is just that.

Everybody who believes in the lie alters the world in a negative way.

-FL

Re:This was innevitable

[tweek]

And I would support your battle with your invaders but Al Quaeda was doing this before 9/11 and before the Iraq invasion.

I simply cannot them with a legitimate attack on occupational forces as described in your scenario.

Amazing?

[thelizman]

Let me get this right. You drove right into London. Then drove right the hell out. Thousands of commuters are now miles from home, and did you offer anyone a ride?

Yes, you're right

[alistair]

OK, fair point. There are some eyewitness accounts from The Guardian here and they seem to agree that a number of people did make it off the the bus, but it still looks fairly bad.

Apologies for any overreaction, no real work done here today as I'm still waiting for news from one friend 6 hours on.

Re:Yes, you're right

[BarryNorton]

Apologies for any overreaction, no real work done here today as I'm still waiting for news from one friend 6 hours on

Know how you're feeling - I texted a very good friend who lives near Kings Cross shortly after 09h30 and then called his home every quarter of an hour until 14h30 when I finally heard he's ok. Best of luck...

War on Terrorism caused this?

[LKM]

I think now is a good time to remind people that the war on terrorism could not have prevented this.

Read about why they did this. It was in retaliation for roles in Afghanistan partly. Sept 11 prompted the destruction of the terrorist camps there.

So what you're saying is that not only didn't the war on terrorism not prevent this, it actually caused this?

Re:Fucking Animals

[holiggan]

Let this be a lesson for Londoners and the rest of the world that terrorism can strike anywhere, and appeasing them will only make them stronger.

Er... I guess that all those years dealing with the IRA bombings were, what? some sort of joke? And the truce that exists today with IRA was acomplished how? By hunting all those "thugs and animals" from IRA? I don't think so.

Look, I hate the terrorist's guts as much the next guy right now, but I don't think that any "War on Terror" will ever acomplish anything except more terror! Because, in the end, it's always the small man that gets it, the people that were comuting to work, the people going about their bussiness in Iraq, the foot soldiers having to fight injust wars.

I don't defend the terrorists, nor the "western civilization", I'm just saying that the course of action on both sides will only lead to an "arm's race" of unknown consequences...

We have a sort of hot-cold-war, and if we as a race, as a whole, don't start looking at it with a "cold" head, it might as well be our downfall...

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[kevinbr]

Yes that was the mistake about the Irish, you should have put us in camps.

What a naive post. I am a citizen of the EU and I doubt I agree with you on any political point. Should I go?

Humans are humans, They are, you are. That they disagree with you has nothing to do with terrorism. A bus will kill you faster than any of your "dangerous" refugees.

I think Ian Paisly is a dangerous extremist. Can I send him back to the mainland UK?

I will make my post redundand...oh well

[XPACT]

Who do you think created AL Queda and why? Surprise!!! surprise!!!! It was the US and CIA. Their goal was to fight against Russia and the communist regime. It was created back in the 60-ties helping varios isliamist groups with their fight against expanding socialist influence. I don't know if you believe in movies, do you remmember "RAMBO III" ??? A lot of money were given to varios isliamic countries, e.g. Turkey. I think turkey's army is the army with most soldiers in any army of NATO (I could be wrong)and guess what Turkey is next to Russia. Well times have changed, there are no commuist countries anymore (with few exceptions CUBA Nort Korea etc) but the bad things were already done(creating of AQ like organizations)

Re:Sounds good to me.

[KamaDragon]

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

Governmental Responses

[zappepcs]

I know that inevitably there will be governmental responses. We're all familiar with some of the responses of the US government after 9/11, and other /. posters have fears of similar or worse for the UK, but I hope that part if not most of the response is to prepare citizens of metropolitan areas with knowledge of what to do in such emergencies.

Yes, I know that you can't write down the top 11 things to do when the train you are on explodes, but there are simple things that can be done.

When there is an emergency, only those in the affected are should be trying to use communications systems... everyone else in the world should not be trying to call their friends and family, let those in London do the calling when they have the time and presence to do so.

Each business should have a plan for how to assist those workers that are 'stuck' at work when transportation is shut down.

Each local government should work with businesses to organize information broadcasting in the affected areas. Something like: if you are not sure what to do, stop on the street and watch the televisions in store windows that will (and they must) be showing evacuation plans, and local centers for those that are stuck etc. The more information that can be broadcast to the populace, the better the response can be orchestrated.

Cellular phone companies should work with public organizations to increase their ability to assist in the response to such emergency events.

I know that no one wants to see more bombs, but emergency response plans and actions are applicable for many events: fires, power outages, train wrecks, tsunami, earthquakes, almost anything that can disrupt the normal flow of things.

I'm not talking about just London, I mean Chicago, Moscow, Bejing, every metropolitan area. I've seen nuclear disaster planning and evacuation plans in the US, but the public is sadly never really informed or given any training in how to deal and react with such disasters.

In the 100,000 foot view of things, watching all the public milling about, slowly trying to get to a point of safety (wrt their own situation) and the emergency response teams trying to assist at the scene(s).. well, it all looks like a very uncoordinated group of ants trying to work around the mess. If our governments would simply begin preparing the public to react with more coordination wrt to the actions that must take place, everyone could be better off.

I'm sure that I'm missing some things out of my view of things, and I'm sure others will tell me about them, but the point is that we don't have to be this uncoordinated or unready to react to emergencies.

I know that some would argue that such planning only spreads panic or is more often ignored or laughed off as not serious or not needed, but in the middle of the mess, if only one person knows exactly what to do, it can save lives and make the emergency teams' response much more effective. If 25 or 100 people know exactly what to do, then it is so much better.

Perhaps I'm just optimistic? I just think that if you have to have the directions everytime you get on a plane, why not have some for normal living?

How would this help Londoners? Perhaps a train stuck underground has a normal emergency action plan? Shouldn't passengers know what it is? The reports of people standing around staring at the bus after it exploded? Shouldn't they already know that they should be running away from the mess as fast as they can? I know that people's morbid curiousity and shock contribute to that problem, but if people generally knew, they could react better, safer.

Its a thought anyway... and better preparations is more desireable than biometric ID cards and such.

Cairo dailies not reliable sources of news...

[dtolman]

This may be news to you, but bizarre rumours made up by the Cairo dailies != facts.

Re:Cairo dailies not reliable sources of news...

[Fantastic Lad]

I don't know what papers you are talking about.

1. When a bombing happens, it is reported in mainstream news.

2. When, for instance, a peace talk is scheduled it is also reported in mainstream news.

The fact that 1 has a particular affect on 2 is also not a lie. A 'Cairo Daily' as you put it has exactly zero bearing on the matter.

In other words, rather than read one source to determine what to believe in, people who are truly interested in growing their awareness, have learned the importance of looking at wide fields of data from many sources and then cross-reference that data in order to build their conclusions.

-FL

Re:Cairo dailies not reliable sources of news...

[dtolman]

Let me spell it out for you... all those heartfelt beliefs you have about Israeli conspiracies, and Jews being warned about 9/11, and it being a CIA plot,etc originate mostly from a small group of mid-east based tabloids (aka - the Cairo dailies). Don't worry about it though... plenty of paranoid delusional people function well enough to maintain a good quality of life. Just make sure you keep 'em focused on things that don't affect daily life, like 9/11...

Re:Cairo dailies not reliable sources of news...

[Fantastic Lad]

Let me spell it out for you... all those heartfelt beliefs you have about Israeli conspiracies, and Jews being warned about 9/11, and it being a CIA plot,etc originate mostly from a small group of mid-east based tabloids (aka - the Cairo dailies).

Uhh. . .

Okay. So either you didn't actually read my last post before responding, or you didn't understand it.

It takes an amazing leap of faith to suppose you know where my 'heartfelt beliefs' come from. But then, this is the heart of the problem. Groundless assumptions.

-FL

Re:Cairo dailies not reliable sources of news...

[dtolman]

Right... I read what you wrote. And I understood it completely. You read a bunch of conspiracy websites, and decided that they seemed much more believable than government and MSM reports.

The fact that you single out a half-dozen idiots, who may happen to come from Israel, as some sort of proof of something deeper going on is proof enough. There were a bunch of idiots dancing who happened to live in Palestine too. Maybe its something in the water? And I've read the conspiracy sites that use the 'dancing spies' as evidence - they all end up throwing in some idiotic (and obviously false) 'fact' in like: there were no Jews killed in 9/11. Please...

Re:Cairo dailies not reliable sources of news...

[Fantastic Lad]

Right... I read what you wrote. And I understood it completely. You read a bunch of conspiracy websites, and decided that they seemed much more believable than government and MSM reports.

No, you read what I wrote and you made poor generalized assumptions.

You also appear to have an odd bias; If I understand your words correctly, then anything which is not a government report or an 'MSM' report, (whatever that is), then it is a 'conspiracy' web-site.

You also singled out one (still entirely valid) point, (dancing Israelis), from among several also entirely valid points, (which you ignored), and you didn't say anything which answers the question those dancing Israelis pose other than to point out that some people were dancing in Palestine as well, (which does absolutely nothing to invalidate the point; I'll explain the logic there if you really need me to), and you then assumed that I am unable to detect propaganda if it happens to originate from the Middle East.

Thanks, but my thinking is not as broken as you ASSUME it to be, (or as yours is, it seems).

And I've read the conspiracy sites that use the 'dancing spies' as evidence - they all end up throwing in some idiotic (and obviously false) 'fact' in like: there were no Jews killed in 9/11. Please...

Good for you. Perhaps you ought to read more than a bunch of dumb conspiracy web-sites and government reports before making such moth-eaten blanket statements.

-FL

Re:Cairo dailies not reliable sources of news...

[dtolman]

You also singled out one (still entirely valid) point, (dancing Israelis), from among several also entirely valid points, (which you ignored), and you didn't say anything which answers the question those dancing Israelis pose other than to point out that some people were dancing in Palestine as well, (which does absolutely nothing to invalidate the point; I'll explain the logic there if you really need me to), and you then assumed that I am unable to detect propaganda if it happens to originate from the Middle East.

Thanks, but my thinking is not as broken as you ASSUME it to be, (or as yours is, it seems). What points? What logic? Your stated 'case' consists of 3 irrelevancies: dancing israeli's, investigations you didn't like, and a passport on a pile of rubble.

The first is an assumption of intent and purpose (and provides no linkage to those responsible to taking over the planes), the second is an opinion that I don't share, and the third doesn't even seem sinister. There was paper fluttering down for hours after the event - that one stapled booklet of paper ended up towards the top instead of the bottom isn't shocking.

And thats ignoring the laughable, unsupported, conclusion that the US/UK/Israeli Shadow Government (which doesn't exist - unless you count the collective institutional momentum of their seperate plodding bueacracies) is responsible... when the evidence all points to a well known organization with more motive, means, and opportunity (not to mention practice) and all done with their usual hallmarks.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Raven_Stark]

A man bombs innocents in a tube station.....is he a fanatic? A highly educated American bombs innocents in a dirt poor village....is he a fanatic?

Your comparison is fundamentally flawed. The people who bombed the tube intended to kill innocent people. Americans don't intend to kill innocent people in the current wars. In fact we spend a great deal of money on technology trying to avoid it.

That said, we stupidly followed the chimpanzee currently occupying the White House into a war which stands very little if any chance of curtailing terrorism but stands a good chance at escalating it. What's more it comes at the cost of surrendering the very core of what I used to love about my country--freedom. The error is one of ignorance, stupidity, fear and blind patriotism not a desire to murder good people for political and religious gain.

My thoughts are with those of you in London.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[scott_evil]

misfortune of others is always funny... even death. Those who say otherwise are probably hippies who drink their own urine or something...

You have to learn history before you can ignore it

[mr100percent]

" I don't recall anything in particular the US was doing, other than being a world economic leader."

That's because most Americans weren't paying attention at the time. The US was giving massive amounts of aid and weapons to Israel, ticking people off. The US backed the Saudi government, which brutally represses dissent. People were pissed that the US backed the coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Algeria. I'm sure the extremists were unhappy with the first Gulf War. Whatever it was, something set them off.

I say glaze the whole fucking middle east over with some tactical nukes.

You see, when people make this sort of generalization, then all of the US allies, Qatar, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, etc. all get really uncomfortable and may just decide to stop helping us. Where do you think the US got all their intelligence on Al Qaeda from? Syria had been actively fighting them for years, and turned over huge amounts of information on them, including names and detainees, as a gesture of goodwill and assistance towards the US. Too bad the US immediately sanctioned them afterwards on behalf of Israel.

Re:Today was not a good day to get the wrong train

[GypC]

So, your solution is to "breed out the hate"? How, exactly, does this work, hippie? Is this some kind of eugenics program?

Re:Terrible.

[colinrichardday]

If the US had not diverted troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, it might have been better able to deal with Al Qaeda.

Re:First Post

[PriceIke]

> So far these clowns managed to blow up seven bombs and kill, ohh, 2 people.

Body count is up to 40 now. (9:31 cst) Happy?

I'm going to disagree

[Degrees]

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.

Re:I'm going to disagree

[GypC]

They won their freedom... and then we "abandoned" them? My, how heartless of us.

???

Re:I'm going to disagree

[Degrees]

Your attempt at mockery both 1) evades the point of our 'meddling' as the source of their hatred and 2) scorns the real damage caused by retaining people willing to fight a war for us, and then thanking them with nothing.

At least with the Laotian people, and our losses in Cambodia, we did the honorable thing, and helped them immigrate to here.

Personally, I think it was a mistake to meddle in the Afghan : USSR war. However, the case can be made that the USSR defeat substantially assisted the decline and fall of the entire USSR. Okay, so far, so good.

The problem came when the president and congress decided to pull their aid to Afghanistan. After two million Afghans were injured (some percentage of them killed), we said "You won. That's nice. Goodbye."

Either the State Department or the CIA should have warned Congress and the President what a huge mistake they were making. You don't sucker in a group of people, and then blow them off, and get away consequence-free.

Of course, IMO, the smart way to win the game was not to have played in the first place.

Nonetheless, having played the game, it was stupid to have walked away from warriors we had trained and supplied, letting them feel like we used them and then threw their worth away.

If you had an anti-USA agenda, could you have asked for better ammunition?

"Heartless" - I suppose. "Stupid" - definitely.

Re:What will the EU do?

[CrayzyJ]

>How about just outlawing something as arcane, ignorant, and hateful as religion?

I was with you on this point. (Look at many wars in the past).

>thus the slaughter in the Middle East

Laughable does not even begine to describe this. OH, I see. you were going for funny. Moderators: +5 FUNNY.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[tylernt]

"People died, there is absolutely nothing funny"

People dying can be funny. Look at the Darwin Awards.

That said, this particular event was most certainly not funny.

Switzerland

[JPortal]

How many terrorist attacks have there been on Switzerland? ... ...

None. A stance of neutrality is still the best.

Re:Switzerland

[jakob_grimm]

A stance of neutrality is still the best.

And certainly the most profitable.

Re:Switzerland

[JPortal]

No, not exactly: http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/guide/religion/is lam.html

The second largest religion in Switzerland ;)

Re:How typographical

[irokie]

sorry, i take it back... i've been caught out by my wording a few times here. so i'm sorry. i have a lot of american friends who are very smart and moderate and who think bush is a tool, so i should've been more careful...

Re:First Post

[m50d]

People who feel like it listen to leaders most of the time, but ignore then if they don't want to do what's being asked. That's why anarchist army regiments in Spain weren't terribly effective - if the sergeant said advance and the troops preferred to retreat, they'd retreat.

Re:This was innevitable

[holiggan]

Now that you mention it, I wonder: do the people that you mention, that want to retain the power, really see the west as "imoral and evil"? My bet is that they are as "imoral and evil" as any of us, you and me and any of us, they just use the religious view on the matter as a smokescreen... and it's much easier to rally people's support if you say that you do A or B "in the name of (any) god", and not because you are a filthy greedy corrupt bastard...

Come to think about it, that sort of behaviour is not something exclusive to middle east nations...

What makes you think they'll stop?

[DesScorp]

Actually, advance science, stop our reliance on crude oil, and then just leave them the fuck alone.

Like running, hiding, and ignoring them will help.

The Quran calls for believers to convert the whole world, by the sword if neccessary...

"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against As-Zatimun (the polytheists and wrong doers)" (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:193).

The stated final goal for Al Quaida is Islamic world government. We can run, hide, ignore them all we want. They're not stopping until they get what they want.

Re:What makes you think they'll stop?

[DigitumDei]

Take away their oil money and the sword is exactly what they'll have to use.

Okay, I exaggerate. But terrorism isn't new, highly funded INTERNATIONAL terrorism has only become widespread because of oil money. That and weapons the US and allies have given them in previous meddlings.

The meddling started because of the oil.
The hatred started because of the meddling.
The meddling and the oil provided all the equipment the terrorists needed.

Also, while fundamentalism may never go, keeping the hell away from them and not meddling will, over time, reduce the number of recruits these groups get. The less recruits, the harder it will be to maintain a network.

buses back on

[RMH101]

...services are starting to return. UK confirm 33 dead so far...

I don't feel "relief"

[The MESMERIC]

But there was a Novel Linux conference this morning at 9am.
I was going to get the route and get out from Liverpool Street at about the time the bombs got off.
I used to work near Moorgate another place where I could have got off and had blasts this morning also. I was going to get the Circle Line.

Last night I felt unwell and so cancelled it.
I still woke up in the morning but just didn't go.

Although I didn't necessarily smelt death in the face, I nevertheless feel uncomfortable sharing the possibility I could be there experiecing these horrible events in person.

These spritual retards believe that by sadistically ripping and maiming people - that will guarantee them a heaven full of naked virgins. How demented can you be?

The latest and a Londoner's view

[twem2]

Total deaths so far 43, from 4 bombs.
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

[horza]

The attack won't change anything. It will leave some families scarred by the loss of a loved one, and an awful lot of really pissed off commuters. We've been through plenty of terrorist attacks already and I'm sure our able emergency services have done their best to treat the injured as quickly and effectively as possible.

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.

Re:The latest and a Londoner's view

[dalutong]

thank you for that post.

Re:This was innevitable

[m50d]

Do you honestly believe bush or any of the other leaders give two shakes about the people who died in this attack, or on september 11th? People in power will always try and keep it and get more, and use any means necessary. However, I honestly believe a lot of the ground troops in Al Quaeda - probably some of the people who planted these bombs - joined up because of the innocent civilians who died in those military actions. If you stop the people they're recruiting, it won't matter what the leaders think.

Re:I Upset the racist club ...

[Dorothy 86]

You're a fucking Hypocrite. You throw out the "racism" card, which would be more like "nationalism" used in the appropriate sense, because he blames the French in an overtly benign manner. Yet, you call myself and all others from my country "wanna-be" Americans. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I do believe that the US of A is also located on the North American Continent. I also believe Mexico is too. We're all North Americans. It just so happens that the world has tended to call the people from my country "Americans" because it's easier to say than "United Satesians" The people from your country have been coined "Canadians" because it's your country's name and it's easy to say.

You either need to put the "race" card up, or change your Sig to reflect the fact that you share this continent with two other countries who are equally "American" in the literal sense; since you're so adament on abolition of "racism."

Unless, of course, it's only "racism" that you happen to disagree with that you fight...

Casualties latest

[iar]

In addition to the hospital reports on those injured, a police press conference has just announced fatalities: Seven dead in the bomb just outside Liverpool St. (the incident linked to Aldgate and Moorgate); twenty-one dead in the tunnel between King's Cross and Russell Square (Piccadilly Line); five dead at Edgware Road; fatalities also on the bus, but they don't know how many.

Ian

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[lastchance_000]

Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die.

- Mel Brooks

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[m50d]

1)Nor did it end because people invaded random nearby countries who they didn't get on with so well, which is what attacking Iraq amounts to.

2)The reason it started was because there hadn't been enough talking and general niceness at the end of WWI. Talking may not have been what ended WWII once it had started, but it was what stopped there being a WWIII.

Re:bin Laden and Iraq: U.S. Indictment

[mr100percent]

An indictment is only an accusation. Nice try.

Re:This was innevitable

[da]

I'm not sure I am sufficiently qualified to respond to such an eloquent and well-thought out post, but I'll try... I believe that people holding attitudes such as yours are part of the problem. You don't agree with him, so you want to kill him - great. I suppose if you got your wish, you'd then think it was totally unreasonable for members of his family to think that you deserved to be punished? Note the previous poster didn't say we deserved this, he just said (if I may paraphrase) he understood why it happened, and I, for one, agree with that (I'm a British citizen). Do you want to kill me, too? Sheesh,

Re:Sounds good to me.

[Bedouin X]

Since when did genocide get such a bad name?

I think that it was that little thing called The Holocaust.

Re:What will the EU do?

[kevinbr]

No it is not flawed. This is just an excuse crafted to make YOU feel good and give you a mental figleaf.

If you KNOW that you will kill civilians, you are acting with intent.

No different to a "terrorist" whatever that phase means.

IN the first Gulf War the press machine fed you your excuses about precision when the truth was that less than 10% of the bombs were smart.

A dead baby held in the arms of the mother cares not for your statement about intent or supression of reality. It is dead.

Eh?

[Marc2k]

Without getting into too political a discussion, I'd just like to dispute this claim that being "evil" is simply a matter of protection. First, let me say that calling George Bush "evil" is juvenile at best, because, just like anything in today's world, the argument is multifaceted; good or evil just doesn't cut it. That being said however (and this seems to be the case with a lot of Bush supporters that I've met, but certainly may not hold in the general case), your argument is just as flat as the delineation between good and evil.
I'd imagine you'd agree with me that classifying someone as "good" or "evil" doesn't make sense (or, failing that, I'll continue to lose faith that there is a shred of pragmatism in th mindset of the Right) because it's just not that simple. But at the same time, you're telling me that because George Bush (but in reality rather his cabinet and staff, which he was much more than likely heavily "advised" on picking from various heads of his political party) managed to keep home-soil terrorist attacks at bay since 9/11, he should be absolved of all other wrongdoing? Essentially that because of the result up until now of one particular aspect of his presidency, he should be declared "good"?

I mean, I agree with you that we shouldn't be celebrating our 'victory' over the War on Terrorism by going out for Big Macs and shopping at Walmart..but by the exact same token, that doesn't mean we should pat our president on the back and give his administration carte blanche for everything else, that's just silly.

Re:Eh?

[BigDogCH]

Well of course, you are right, but I hope you noticed, but the "bush is evil" part was mostly a final thought, not the content of my reasoning. It was not a 20-minute discussion on why I believe bush is evil, nor was it meant to be debated (although I should have known it would happen). The purpose of the post was to pull the above discussion into something a little more productive, and less "juvenile".

Also, what home-soil terrorist attacks are you referring to? We are more affraid of terrorism now than ever. Terrorism isn't about death, it is about fear and loss of liberty. Bush has spread both. I will not debate this with you, because it is clearly true. I was not trying to propose some sort of multifaceted argument against bush, but was simply pointing out how the previous posters may have entirely missed the boat (or maybe found the wrong boat entirely). I should end every post with "bush is evil", because it distracts people away from the entire purpose of the discussion.

I am also not so sure that Bush has done anything to help protect the "home soil". What benifit would terrorists get from attacking the U.S.? Then people would rally behind bush! They are far better off to kill American soldiers, and inocent civilians overseas. That way we can watch it on the brain box, and talk about how none of us voted for bushy.

Now that I consider it, I think I will stick with being Juvenile. Children have an innocence that I love to watch, and they understand life from a perspective much more pure than adults. If the world was run by children we wouldn't have war, famine, corruption, or evil dictators promoting the growth of Walmart. And, we would all have plenty of legos.

Re:Eh?

[Abu Taleb]

I am far from a Bush lover - but when I see 27 million people freed from the most brutal and oppressive dictatorship on earth, as a Muslim, I say thank you America.

Re:Eh?

[BigDogCH]

Excellent point, however Sadam was far from "the most brutal and oppressive dictatorship on earth". Look around, there are many which are worse.

I think one problem Americans have is that it is rare for a nation to say "thank you" for any of their good deeds. It always seems to come back and bite them in the rear.

Also, Sadam was not removed for what it would do for Muslims, he was removed for an alterior motive. The benifit to the people of Iraq is simply a side effect. Either way it is good, I know, but I just wanted to point that out.

Re:Eh?

[Abu Taleb]

"Side effect" or direct effect, does not matter. What matters are the results. Iraqis benefitted. Now whatever the intentions was, is besides the point and you will never know. IF Kim Il Sung is more brutal than Saddam, how does that imply that 27 million Iraqis should suffer with Saddam? What sort of logic is this? Like saying we should not care about heart disease as long as there is cancer. Fact is that it was win-win for both the West (not just America, mind you), and Iraq. The losers are the Islamist and the nationalist fascists, and their pseudo-leftist buddies in the west. The losers are the racist bleeding-hearts who think democracy and freedoms are too good for Iraqis and middle easterners.

Re:Eh?

[BigDogCH]

You are correct, I was just saying that we shouldn't forget that others are suffering, and we shouldn't give credit to Bush for being a hero when it wasn't his intention. Excellent point though.

Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[Concern]

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..."

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[Concern]

Great example. Clinton's campaign in Bosnia and Kosovo makes the point perfectly. It was clearly in response to an important event. It had wide international support, was run through the U.N., and was generally considered a success.

The loudest objectors were non-interventionists and those with "wag the dog" conspiracy theories about Clinton.

Afghanistan was a direct response to 9/11. Osama most likely really was there, and they nearly caught him. Nobody tried to label it as primarily a "humanitarian" mission, although it certainly was a big added bonus to see the Taliban have to go back to their caves for a while. That was another great success, and not many protested that either.

Iraq was none of those things. If we had gone to Sierra Leone instead and tried to stop the campaign of mass amputations, for instance... but no. We ignored that. We went to Iraq. We went to help the wealthy man, passing over a dozen diseased beggars on our trip across the ocean. We could have been blunt about what we were going to do, I think... anyway, nobody even tried to sell the war as primarily humanitarian until after it became obvious the only nuke program was in Iran.

Go on, if you want to hear the litany of evidence again, I'll oblige but, haven't you already heard it?

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[daveschroeder]

*Sigh*

There were distinct reasons Iraq was chosen. I'd like to reiterate this from one of my previous messages, below. You can make arguments about North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., as being more "appropriate" targets under various circumstances, but Iraq was picked for a reason. And no, it wasn't to "help the wealthy man".

---

It's pretty saddening that no one will confront the very real danger that is Panislamism and its radical forms, especially Europe, given its close geographic proximity. Regardless of what Europe's motivation is for ignoring this threat, the Panislamic radicals won't differentiate between Paris and Washington DC when it's time to execute attacks against the West.

As for the insurgency in Iraq, where the fuck do you think these people come from? That they're just ordinary Iraqis fighting the evil US dog occupiers? Hardly. Most of them are radicals, many not even from Iraq, who are attacking and killing their own Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters indiscriminately, in the hopes of turning them manifestly against the US forces, forcing an almost pragmatic decision: even though there will be turmoil and perhaps civil war if the US leaves, we'll keep killing you until you rise up against the US, or make it politically difficult for the US to remain. Then we'll install the radical Islamic theocracy that only 1% of Iraqis said they wanted in numerous Oxford Research studies in Iraq. And then truthout can say "Look, we told you so! The US going into Iraq just made the whole region worse; look at even Iran's recent election! See, the Republicans don't care about making the mideast a safer place or fighting terror, in fact, all they're really concerned about is the flow of oil!"

What a completely retarded view. First, all the naysayers who, disgustingly, in my opinion, invoke the US war dead in favor of their arguments also apparently don't care about Iraqis at all. Because if the US leaves, a SHITLOAD more Iraqis will die than ever would have, regardless of whether or not the US ever set foot in Iraq in 2003. That is an absolute given. So if they're out to "preserve life", that's certainly not the way to do it. Further, some people apparently can't understand the concept of sacrifice and taking risks. But I won't even get into that here. And finally, there is continuing and perpetual ignorance to the fact that we don't yet live in the utopian Star Trek-style world government where everyone is happy: there are people in the world, regardless of why (and, as I've said before, it's not due exclusively, or even mostly, to US policy), who want to see and end to the West. And no, it's not because they "hate freedom" (though, actually, they do). But the reason is irrelevant. There comes a time when you realize that there still are nation-states on this Earth, and that sometimes, they need to be defended. Proactively. Or, to say a dirty word, "preemptively". Anyone who can't see the writing on the wall with respect to energy and the mideast has their head in the sand. And frankly, the need for energy from at least quasi-friendly states in the mideast in the short term is not necessarily at odds with standing up quasi-democratic, free governments among the peoples of the mideast. (Iraq was a good place to start, because it was an easy case to make in a simplistic fashion, and was one of the MOST secular states, meaning the least likelihood of an internal Islamic backlash.)

Even Kerry got it:

To destroy our enemy, we have to know our enemy. We have to understand that we are facing a radical fundamentalist movement with global reach and a very specific plan. They are not just out to kill us for the sake of killing us. They want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region s governments and pave the way for a new empire, an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area fr

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[Brandybuck]

Iraq will be worse than Iran; I imagine even you are realizing it now.

The differences between the two are so vast I'm amazed you're trying to compare them. The people of Iraq are overwhelmingly in favor of the US and democracry. The insurgents are a minute fraction of the popularce, and would be totally ineffective without their import of Saudi teenagers. While the Iraqi people may be in disagreement as to how soon the US should leave after freeing them from a dictator that made the Shah look like a kindergartner, they are as whole grateful for the intervention.

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[Concern]

• A war to bring democracy to a dictator-state, that simultaneously puts America in control of a vital natural resource, may be a good idea, or it may not.
  
• Unfortunately, nobody ever made that case. Instead, we heard about 9/11, and then "yellow cake," and then we heard about "WMD," and then we heard about toppling an evil dictator and the suffering of the Iraqi people.
  
• This duplicity is what opened up the hawks for all the criticism they have since received.
  
• The Bush administration has been embarassed and disgraced for its claims about Iraq and WMDs. If they had been honest, maybe it would have gone differently.
  
• The war in Iraq is backfiring horribly, just as most of those with expertise, including former president George Bush, predicted. Whether or not the war is "justified" is immaterial if it cannot reasonably be expected to succeed.
  
• If the war in Iraq is actually helping the cause of Islamic Fascism, what then?
  
• Iran underscores the point - this has happened before. The end result is an excellent example of the very kind of Fascist Islamic state you are battling against.

We all want the same things. We just disagree on how to go about it. (Yes, it's true. You're being lied to about that too.)

We backed a coup in Iran primarily over oil (Soviets get honorable mention), not because it was the right thing to do. And we are prosecuting a war in Iraq primarily because of oil, not because it is the right thing to do. Certainly not all of the myriad merry-go-round of official justifications, which have been as conclusively debunked as one could ask for.

If our goal was really WMD proliferation, or "being the world's policeman," we would have gone about it very differently... for instance, the way we used to. Everyone knows it.

Bad intentions, bad planning, bad management. And yes, as you point out, now we have no acceptable exit strategy either.

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[Concern]

Amnesty International calls the Shah's secret police the Worst in the World.

Think about that for a minute. The Worst in the World.

And you call him a kindergartner.

A kindergartner? A kindergartner who liked removing teeth with pliers, I guess.

Unfortunately, your grasp of history is as loose as your grasp of current events, and the war is not going as well as you would like to believe. The insurgents include many Iraqis, for a variety of reasons, so your reference to what "The Iraqis" want isn't necessarily meaningful. If you're pointing out that bad actors like Iranian intelligence have a bit of a home-court advantage there too, you're not exactly helping yourself.

(That's a private account by a Wall Street Journal reporter, by the way. For those not current with U.S. media, the W.S.J is ostensibly right-wing, and pro-war.)

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[daveschroeder]

Instead, we heard about 9/11, and then "yellow cake," and then we heard about "WMD," and then we heard about toppling an evil dictator and the suffering of the Iraqi people.

Agreed. While I do believe these were corollary reasons, they were by no means the primary reason(s). However, as I noted above, the primary reason being a multi-pronged, multi-year (or perhaps multi-decade) strategy of initiating difficult changes in the mideast would not have flown as a justification. Sure, there would have been those that understood it, but for better or worse, that would not have worked as a justification for the action.

It seems clear this is nothing more than a manifestation of Strauss' concept of "noble lies".

The Bush administration has been embarassed and disgraced for its claims about Iraq and WMDs. If they had been honest, maybe it would have gone differently.

Once again, agreed.

However, considering the wealth of (essentially circumstantial) evidence that Iraq still was in possession of WMD it was previously known to be in possession of and for which it provided no proof or accounting of any destruction or disarmament, I do believe the Bush administration and planners legitimated believed they would encounter caches of WMD in Iraq, thus vindicating the war based on that reasoning. In reality, the weapons were properly either hidden well enough long ago, and indeed, many or nearly all likely do not even remain in Iraq.

The war in Iraq is backfiring horribly, just as most of those with expertise, including former president George Bush, predicted. Whether or not the war is "justified" is immaterial if it cannot reasonably be expected to succeed.

This is patently incorrect. On what basis do you make this claim?

Those opposed said that the transfer of sovereignty wouldn't happen.

It did.

They said the elections wouldn't happen.

They did.

They said a constitution wouldn't be drawn.

It is.

Now, you can make arguments as to whether or not Iraq is truly sovereign, whether the elections were truly effective, or whether the constitution is really a creation manifestly of the Iraqi people.

Perhaps the answer to all of those is, no, not completely. But the process is not perfect, and the fact of the matter is that there is an internationally recognized sovereign government officially in administrative and governmental control of Iraq. That the US forces are still required in some areas is incidental to this particular argument; however, it is likely that US forces will remain for some time to assist with such tasks as rebuilding, which will slowly become a higher priority than even security.

If the war in Iraq is actually helping the cause of Islamic Fascism, what then?

It indeed is.

And was always expected to do so in the short term.

This is one of my favorite arguments, because it presumes that someone expected Islamic radicalism to simply be quashed quickly and easily by entering a single, somewhat secular nation-state.

That is not at all the strategy. The strategy is one of influence by proxy and adjacency. Certainly the Panislamic radicals will use the Iraq action as a recruiting tool, and indeed as a method to sway more people to their position! But the reasoning they use to do so is flawed. The American infidels do not want to kill all Muslims. They do not want to kill all Arabs. They do not want to take over the middle east. They do not want to kill their brothers and sisters and mothers and children. They do not want to convert them to Christianity. They do not want to fly the US flag over their countries (save for at embassies, the brief and quickly corrected mistake of covering Saddam's face with the American flag aside). All of the recruiting statements are simply not true. Some may simply be upset at circumstance and the presence of the Americans, but the true radicalism is borne of things that are decidedly UNtrue. The evil Satan

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[Brandybuck]

Amnesty International calls the Shah's secret police the Worst in the World.

Amnesty International also compares Guantanamo Bay to concentration camps, the Soviet Gulag and Pol Pot's regime. AI's reputation as an objective obversor is not only tarnished, it's in shreds.

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[David Rolfe]

Hey Dave,

I generally respect your opinions. However, using human calculus is a really slippery slope.

You say: First, all the naysayers who, disgustingly, in my opinion, invoke the US war dead in favor of their arguments also apparently don't care about Iraqis at all. Because if the US leaves, a SHITLOAD more Iraqis will die than ever would have, regardless of whether or not the US ever set foot in Iraq in 2003. That is an absolute given. So if they're out to "preserve life", that's certainly not the way to do it.

Do you have any credible or concrete information to show that more or less Iraqis would have died if we'd never invaded? Where does the post withdrawal "shitload" figure come from? The death rate in Iraq right now is near 100,000 (one hundred thousand) per year. If we had left Iraq alone, and "evil" Saddam remained in power, can you really argue more Iraqis would have died? Would more troops have died if we pressed the hunt for OBL instead of diverting to Iraq?

Further, you go on to chide us all for not willing to make sacrifices. I love making sacrifices as much as the next guy, and I'm glad to hear you served in the military, if not the infantry, but honestly what is the true cost of this (as you say elsewhere) pre-emptive war?

It's not just the 1700 soldiers who signed up to die. And it's not the 200,000 Iraqis who were under the wrong shell at the wrong time. The real sacrifice is the "generational" investment (the one that is shielded from our eyes by no-contest appropriations and deficit spending). And what's more, it's a crying shame that we aren't all sacrificing under war rationing and turning in our extra cash for war bonds. Maybe if this generation could sacrifice like my grandfather's and my uncle's -- if we learned that war-time was a time to do without -- then we wouldn't be as trivial and trite (even flippant?) as you seem to be about choosing war.

If sacrifice is so important why aren't we pushing for the draft, and why haven't you re-upped?

Why are there still war-supporters at home and not in Iraq securing the objective (whatever that may be)?

So yeah, nothing personal. This though is hillarious to me:
Things like "we'd like to begin a multi-decade comprehensive strategy of political change in the middle east to kill off Panislamic radicalism, forcibly when necessary, for our own safety and security, and that of the Western economies, in addition to enabling free markets and free exchange of information and ideas among the peoples of the mideast for long term mutual benefit, and we're going to start by militarily overtaking and occupying a quasi-secular, centrally located nation-state to begin creating a catalyst for change and modernization in the region" [...] In other words don't debate the real issue at all, don't address the choices with the citizenry -- just lie to everyone and then argue long after the fact that it was in their own best interest. This is why it's so fucked up that you don't need congress to declare war anymore. Nice one. As a progressive, or at least a Kerry supporter, you have to acknowledge the irony of what you just said... I.e., it was OK for Bush to lie us into war for the very long term outcome. Wow.

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[daveschroeder]

Hello,

However, using human calculus is a really slippery slope.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. It's just that others seem to be using this mechanism, e.g., "x number of Americans dead" or "y number of Iraqis" dead. If the number of dead is somehow important - and I agree that it is - perhaps its worthwhile to examine the scope and scale. I would propose that ~1700 Americans dead during an over-two-year military operation with a massive troop presence in this context is rather amazing.

As for the Iraqis:

Do you have any credible or concrete information to show that more or less Iraqis would have died if we'd never invaded?

In another post, I said this is difficult to prove one way or the other because of a lack of accurate accounting. But before the war, and indeed before Bush was even in office, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International independently claimed that approximately 100,000 Iraqis were dying per year as a direct result of the sanctions.

So assuming we believe those numbers, and since continuing sanctions as-is were presented as the only reasonable alternative to military action, we compare to Iraqi deaths due to the US military operations. If we double iraqbodycount.net's figures, we arrive at 50,000. If we quadrupule it, 100,000. By any account, assuming 200,000 dead as a result of the US action is a very high, and probably incorrect, estimate. The actual number is likely closer to between 50,000 and 100,000. And no, neither of us have credible, concrete estimates on which to base this - but I won't use the lowest estimates, so I believe it's equally disingenuous for others to use the highest.

While there are no good figures on Iraqi deaths due to insufficient infrastructure, it is believed that, while incomplete, the US has done a satisfactory job of restoring some infrastructure, electricity, sanitation, basic services, medical care, clean water, and food, to certain non-urban areas of Iraq that suffered gravely the prior decade, thus reducing the unnecessary deaths in these areas. These were, at times, also deaths attributed to the sanctions process. Of course, we've now learned that there was massive corruption in the sanctions process and among the contract administrators of the UN Oil for Food Programme, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, the major beneficiaries of the spoils being, coincidentally, France, Germany, and Russia, in that order.

In any event, it's certainly arguable that there was a net preservation of Iraqi life, if we take HRC and Amnesty's sanctions death figures and compare them with even a quadrupled iraqbodycount.net estimate. Human calculus? Yes. But at some point you have to do an analysis of the operation from various perspectives. Are we actually securing Iraq, or are we at least on the road there? Are the terror attacks still targeting US military targets, or have they shifted more to Iraqi National Guard and Iraqi police, or indeed even to Iraqi civilians? Are we improving the state of affairs in Iraq, generally (NOT just viewing exclusively population centers like Baghdad), as compared with before we arrived? Will the government of Iraq be able to assert authority and control over the nation? What are the implications of our actions, both immediate (increase in terror recruiting) and long term (reduction in the tolerance for radicals amongst the people of Iraq of the mideast at large)? Is it worth it? I would argue that it is.

It's not just the 1700 soldiers who signed up to die. And it's not the 200,000 Iraqis who were under the wrong shell at the wrong time.

Make no mistake: just because I haven't mentioned the Iraqi lives lost in the previous post doesn't mean I haven't considered them. The images of the Iraqi suffering, whether intended or not, sadden me, and the thoughts of their hardships have troubled me just as much as an American family who may have lost a loved one.

The real sacrifice is the "generational" investment (the one that is shielde

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[Concern]

the primary reason being a multi-pronged, multi-year (or perhaps multi-decade) strategy of initiating difficult changes in the mideast would not have flown as a justification. Sure, there would have been those that understood it, but for better or worse, that would not have worked as a justification for the action.

It seems clear this is nothing more than a manifestation of Strauss' concept of "noble lies".

I think one reason it wouldn't have flown because it was a bad idea, and most experts knew it.

Regardless, there you have the problem with noble lies: we didn't have a real debate.

Who knows, maybe there was a "right way" to invade Iraq; multilateral, sophisticated, well-planned, executed by people promoted for talent instead of loyalty. That right way had no chance of happening under Bush.

Bush's problem is that he is after the oil. And when I say that, I mean that his bigger picture isn't big enough. He is a silverware thief and a second-rate fascist, not a nation builder, and he runs his war like one.

In reality, the weapons were properly either hidden well enough long ago, and indeed, many or nearly all likely do not even remain in Iraq.

You phrase it well. They thought they would at least find something they could use. Truthfully even if they found some Sarin or Anthrax it doesn't change that others next door are known to be working on nukes.

Let alone that we have now demonstrated to the 3rd world that a plausible purpose of U.N. disarmament regimes is to pacify a nation before a U.S. invasion.

Let alone that the U.N. itself, an essential instrument not only for peace and WMD disarmament, but as a sophisticated tool for U.S. hegemony, has been irretrievably weakend by our actions.

Incidentally, I actually disagree that America wouldn't have bought a more bold-faced justification for the war. I think that more of the truth would have worked. We'll never know, of course. Just an idle speculation, but take it for what you will.

This is patently incorrect. On what basis do you make this claim?

Let's start by agreeing to disagree. Neither of us are in the intelligence business (or would admit to it if we were), so we are only swordfighting with table knives.

That said, even Wall Street Journal reporters are waxing apocalyptic at this point. The reports from the ground are quite frightening, especially when you consider certain details.

I am willing to be persuaded, in no small part because I want to be persuaded, that I am wrong.

I am unimpressed by ceremonies. I always said they would have great ones. Sovereignty, elections, constitutions... Occupation is all about ceremony. It's all meaningless if the end result is a backlash and a possible Iranian takeover (in fact if not in name), when we are finally beaten away.

Who has good news that is not also drinking the kool aid? The casualty graphs don't show a trend...

This is one of my favorite arguments, because it presumes that someone expected Islamic radicalism to simply be quashed quickly and easily by entering a single, somewhat secular nation-state.

Actually, nobody expected it, and not even Bush's people claimed anything that outrageous (though they came close).

I don't see how what we've done for the anti-western arab movement in Iraq is in any way a short-term problem. Casualties never come back to life. Casual humiliation from frontier-mentality security actions has been the first impression of the west for an enormous number of Iraqis. People will now be saying the words "Abu Ghraib" with respect to us instead of Saddam for a generation.

I think you've traded a major strategic gain to Muslim Fascism today in exchange for an extremely dubious chance of fostering western-friendly oil policies and political moderation in Iraq in the future.

Say we were able to build a democracy in Iraq tomorr

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[gay358]

In the BMJ study they estimated that about 100 000 EXCESS deaths are attributable to the invasion of Iraq.

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[Concern]

So, you think Amnesty Internation was exaggerating about SAVAK?

I'm glad we have this on record.

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[David Rolfe]

Thanks for the well reasoned response.

I snarkily said: "If sacrifice is so important why aren't we pushing for the draft, and why haven't you re-upped?"

To which you replied: "By that logic, you could argue that in order for me to express an opinion in favor of military action, I'd have to be in the military for my entire life."

Haha, not exactly. When one is both in favor of a war-of-choice and demands human sacrifice it would only seem fair to put one's body where one's policy is. I mostly made that remark due to frustration with the "chicken hawks". To me it seems like combat vets (or at least career soldiers) are better prepared to make decisions about war.

Anyhow. I was going to talk about the vets in my family and where they stand on the war and it's ROI regarding American hegemony in the mid-east, but it really doesn't matter (so I deleted it all). Regardless of the personal reasons, in my estimation extending U.S. hegemony throughout the region is the same sort of vain crap that hasn't been working for ages. It has the same smell as "making the world safe for democracy". That lead to a generation of wasted Cold-War effort -- my inner geek hates wasted effort. Now it looks like the same thing, only this time we'll have a 30 to 40 year Warm-War with a more insidious (and possibly falsified) threat of nuclear annihilation. There won't be any duck and cover warning, there will just be unannounced abject panic. Plus, we won't get any of the great space-race perks, we'll only get more advanced surveillance and terrorist-sniffing data-mining.

What perks do you see coming out of the Terror-War?

Sorry for rambling and thanks again for taking the time to reply before. Pardon any mistakes, and especially pardon my uninformed/mixed-up Iraqi casualty numbers from before.

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[Brandybuck]

I am not claiming that the Shah had shit that didn't stink. He was pretty nasty. But was his regime worse than Saddam's?

As for Amnesty International, they don't have any credibility, so even if they told me that that the sun rose in the east this morning, I would seek independent verification.

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[Concern]

was his regime worse than Saddam's?

I agree with Litvinov, I think her use of the word was wrong. I also maintain their description of SAVAK and the Shah's regime was accurate. You clearly still haven't read about it, or you would be much quieter.

The most biased of all screaming "bias!" at others seems to be the hallmark of our time.

Do you think you can discount all of AI's history and work from that one comment? Do you like to use a single gaffe to discredit an entire organization? Someone has told you that you can, maybe by example. They were playing you for a huge fool.

How about a presidential candidate, for instance, who speaks haughtily and with great fanfare about restoring dignity to the whitehouse, shortly before calling a reporter as an "asshole?"

I deliberately picked the most innocuous example I could think of. Bush has no credibility either, by your standard.

I'm just waiting for you to crack open that source material. There is no republican party cheat sheet on the Shah's Iran. Just cold hard facts... When we are done here, you'll realize "gulag of our time" is nothing to what you've done, and you'll be caught in your own trap. Or will you not be man enough to admit it?

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[Brandybuck]

You clearly still haven't read about it, or you would be much quieter.

I have read about it. My use of the word "kindergarten" was out of line, and I apologize. I attempted to use hyperbole as a debate tactice, but failed to realize that tactic is reserved for use by the left (cf. "gulag").

The Shah was certainly an evil man with a particularly nasty secret police. I am not denying that. I am only questioning whether he was worse than Saddam Hussein.

Do you think you can discount all of AI's history and work from that one comment? Do you like to use a single gaffe to discredit an entire organization?

When the organization does not apologize for the gaffe, chastise the gaffer, and in no way attempts to distance themselve from the gaffe, then indeed I do. Sheesh, even Durbin managed to feebleattempt at apology ("I'm sorry that some of think I should be sorry")!

Bush has no credibility either, by your standard... There is no republican party cheat sheet on the Shah's Iran.

Wait, I'm confused. Are you assuming I'm a Republican and a Bush supporter? Hah hah hah! Maybe in your little narrow worldview you think everything is divided neatly down the middle into lockstep groups, but that's not how life is. It's possible to dislike AI's Gitmo statement without also having voted for Bush. It's possible to view the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo as humane (despite lack of due process) without being a Republican. It's possible to view the US invasion of Iraq as wrong without being a Democrat or Green.

Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[Concern]

I have read about it. My use of the word "kindergarten" was out of line, and I apologize. I attempted to use hyperbole as a debate tactice, but failed to realize that tactic is reserved for use by the left (cf. "gulag").

Oh my word. Look at what you have written. Just stop here a moment and contemplate this paragraph with me. Really, think about it.

Reserved? Nothing is reserved, BB. And if I ever need proof, I will point them to you.

Do you mind if I bookmark this post, and maybe show it to a few other people?

Frankly, I think your "kindergarten" description of the Shah and SAVAK, and your instant blanket condemnation of Amnesty International, an enormously important humanitarian group that includes many from all parties and beliefs, are far far worse than the "Guantanamo as gulag of our time" gaffe. I don't know, maybe if we cool off and look at it objectively you can even agree.

One thing, though, claiming you have some background knowledge to back up your behavior does not make you look better.

I am not denying that. I am only questioning whether he was worse than Saddam Hussein.

Someone who had read about it would have come up with at least one concrete argument by now as to why. I did - the statement of an authority on human rights abuses. Want to do more? I am willing.

When the organization does not apologize for the gaffe, chastise the gaffer, and in no way attempts to distance themselve from the gaffe, then indeed I do

Since your own apology was a powerful exercise in comedy, we must now consider you perfectly, elegantly hoisted on your own petard.

It is your very own arguments we must now rule out for all time, BB.

Are you assuming I'm a Republican and a Bush supporter?

Yes.

You're are arguing one of their talking points.

you think everything is divided neatly down the middle into lockstep groups

No.

It's possible to dislike AI's Gitmo statement without also having voted for Bush

For instance, I do. But that's not why I made that assumption.

It's possible to view the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo as humane (despite lack of due process) without being a Republican.

Hell, you can still be a Republican and be locked up in Gitmo, but as with all of these things, since the likelihood decreases, everyone acts accordingly.

It's possible to view the US invasion of Iraq as wrong without being a Democrat or Green.

Indeed, I know some Republicans and conservatives who are very angry about it.

Now, for the record, I consider your exercise in "you guessed my label wrong" to have added nothing to this debate but a distraction. However, I do apologize for assuming your label was wrong, if I have indeed guessed wrong. Now, shall we continue?

Re:Fucking Animals

[tracker1972]

I don't know, thats why I don't run a country, but I do know that if someone tried to kill my company boss or father or whoever, I would not go and firebomb their fucking house!!

I think it is because I was brought up in a civillised society where you just dont do that kind of thing. Something to do with being "better than them" I think.

Tracker.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century...

[Anonymous Coward]

You talk about this like it's something new. Did you forget about 30 years of Irish terrorism, or are you just ignorant about it? When AQ cause distruption to London on a monthly or weekly basis, then it'll be something to get one's knickers in a twist over. Try getting out a bit more and spend less time listening to the propaganda from that fear-monger George Bush.

Re:What will the EU do?

[oops]

"i'd like to point out that dubya actually declared the axis of evil before the Twin Towers fell."

Is that true ? State of the Union speech, 2002

I thought this was the speech that first used this phrase.

Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[Catbeller]

Terrorism is a description of a methodology, as seen by the attacked.

"Al Qaeda" as a term did not exist prior to a certain (sorry) trial where a criminal termed his movement in that fashion, spinning a tale of massive worldwide organization. He got a reduced sentence, I believe.

His tale was used exclusively by Bush and the neocons after 9-11 (without crediting the source). Point is, there was no "Al Qaeda" in name or organization prior to 9-11 -- but now there is. Any radical fundie who wants to blow something up now will call himself a member of "Al Qaeda". It's a like a decentralized franchise operation.

There were quite a few operatives in this operation. It took coordination, and that takes numbers. BUT. Not that many. This could have been done by four people, total, on the low side. Grandly expanding four psychos into a worldwide "terrorist" army with which we are at war will be Blair's and Bush's instant exploitation.

This is a CRIMINAL act, not an act of war. Timothy McVeigh was not a member of the militant terrorist Michigan Militia, and that group was not at war with the U.S. What bin Laden is, is a nutjob, and he has a small cadre of nutjobs that are with him. He can't declare war. He's not a country. He's a criminal. Send police after him. SAME with these nutjobs.

OTOH, could have been Iraqis bringing the war back to Britain.

Iraq has nothing to do with the f*^&ing "war" on "terror". The people there are fighting us because we invaded and took over their country, incidentally stealing their oil and establishing a permanent military garrison. It's called an insurgency, and insurgents use guerilla tactics. The invader calls it "terrorism". Nut jobs are indeed coming in from around the world, but Bush was falsly invoking them as the cause of the insurgency from day one of the occupation; they are not the primary movers. Iraq did not harbor jihadists. He lied. Iraq NOW has pissed off citizenry that will eventually bring the war to the US and Britain. But we MADE them. They did not exist before.

What makes my fury boil is the way Bush and Blair will idiotically and unashamedly link the criminal act in London to the need to continue the "War on Terror" in Iraq, making the ears of informed people bleed from the sheer pain of listening to the exploitation of death. Iraq may very well have spawned the attacks on London, but IF the attack came from Iraq, then B&B brought it on. Bush actually said, "Bring it on!" when asked about terrorist attacks engendered by his invasion of Iraq.

Well, they've brought it on, either the nutjobs or pissed-off Iraqis. What now, you fake cowboy? Gonna keep killing "terrorists" until the world runs out of them, as you've implied?

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[Tom]

Bush actually said, "Bring it on!"

Great point. From that statement onwards, he should lose all rights to complain if they comply.

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[JamaisVu]

I've read about the bombs in London. It's probably not as new to the
English as it was to the Americans, and I'm not sure if you are in
London. It's hard to swallow, this shit... and the worst part about
it is the media sculpting the public's natural shock, mourning, and anger into
a choreography of fear and subordinance. The government in the U.S.
used it to convince people that they shouldn't have privacy or rights
to fair trial if they were so 'evil' as to support or not directly
combat "terrorism" in an obvious (physical and base) way.

I tried explaining to people that if we actually allow our government
to persecute the people who they pin the blame on this, it will only
be an act of complacency in the persecution of innocent people that
will now have reason to hate and attack our society. People in NYC
considered me a traitor and spineless, but I genuinely believe that
sending guns to a poor country doesn't do anything but create enemies
that don't have much to lose (the worst kind of enemies).

This is the reason for my sympathy. Of course I send my condolences
to the innocent people, whoever that is, that died this morning or
were hurt. That doesn't go without saying, but it's true. However,
the greater tragedy is how much this sort of thing will usher in a new
age of technological oppression. Where people don't have as much of a
chance to redeem themselves, or balance their karma, or pay off their
delinquent debts. This is what is the biggest burden that people in
the U.K. will have to face.

In a wider context, the U.K. already leads the world in adoption of
technologies for 'protection' that actually erode personal privacy and
rights. This event, at the G-8 host, will open the doors wide(r) open
for the U.S. and other countries to follow the U.K. example of cameras
and cards and all of that other mess that's coming.

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[Tom]

Iraq NOW has pissed off citizenry that will eventually bring the war to the US and Britain. But we MADE them.

Here's a quote from Blair today:
"Our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism upon the world,"
(source: wikipedia)

Someone in Iraq could say pretty much the same thing to justify the continued resistance against US forces.

Funny how everyone in this world thinks he's with the good guys and the others are the bad boys.

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[Kamel Jockey]

Point is, there was no "Al Qaeda" in name or organization prior to 9-11 -- but now there is.

You are a fucking idiot. Whoever modded this post "Insightful" is even more of a fucking idiot. Do you really believe what you are saying? Are you going to tell me that the USS Cole bombing and the Dharan base bombings were carried out by the Boogeyman?

What bin Laden is, is a nutjob, and he has a small cadre of nutjobs that are with him. He can't declare war. He's not a country. He's a criminal. Send police after him. SAME with these nutjobs.

Send the cops after terrorists? We did that after the 1993 WTC bombing and we put the terrorists in jail. That sure prevented the WTC from being attacked again! And what was that about Osama not being able to declare war on the USA?

Gonna keep killing "terrorists" until the world runs out of them, as you've implied?

Let's see, that worked with the Nazis in Germany, the Facsists in Italy and many other enemies of the free world. We certainly did not care about "swelling their ranks" as we killed them because they were certainly more than willing to kill as many of us as they possibly could.

People like you need to understand that there are people out there who want us all dead and they are willing to do whatever it takes to kill each and every one of us. No amount of cajoling, coddling or conversation will ever change the way they think. The only way to be 100% sure that they can never hurt us is to kill 100% of them.

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[gatkinso]

>>Point is, there was no "Al Qaeda" in name or organization prior to 9-11

Some pre 9/11 Al Qaeda acts:

- Yemen 1992 against US military personnel (attack thwarted)

- 1993 1st Bombing of World Trade Center 6 killed

- 1996 Khobar Towers 19 killed

- 1998 Bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa 224 killed

1999 Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle (foiled)

- 2000 USS Cole 17 killed

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[Coryoth]

Any radical fundie who wants to blow something up now will call himself a member of "Al Qaeda". It's a like a decentralized franchise operation.

Exactly. There just isn't any real evidence of some globe spanning terror network, or army of al Qaeda out to get us. Everything we know about al Qaeda shows them to be a kind of venture capital enterprise for terrorists. Bin Laden didn't come up with the idea, or plan, or mastermind or orchestrate the WTC attack. He provided money to some people because they explained their idea and I guess he thought it sounded good.

The statement we have for the London attack is worth reading carefully. For a moment pretend that al Qaeda is just a small operation that had a lot of cash to fund whatever terrorist came to them looking for money, and that said small organisation is (post Afghanistant) essentially unable to do anything. The name of the group claiming responsibility "The Secret Organization Group of Al-Qa'ida of Jihad Organization in Europe", and their statements to the effect of "We worked really hard to pull this off" start to come off like a small group of nutjob wannabes who have heard the western media portrayal of al Qaeda, thought it sounded like a good idea, tried to "join up" but couldn't actually find anything to join up with, so created their own little secret club and are trying to "get attention" from this massive globe spanning terror network they've heard about and prove that they're capable by blowing things up.

Jedidiah.

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[ctid]

The list you present is rather controversial. There is no doubt that muslim fundamentalists carried out all these attacks, but the extent to which Al Qaeda is a group which organizes as opposed to funds such things is dubious. Nowadays, however, everyone knows the name of Al Qaeda, so it suits the sort of people who would murder people by the hundred to ally themselves with this name. This is a good discussion on this issue of what Al Qaeda actually is. The documentary mentioned on that page suggests that Bin Laden's contribution to the whole thing is mostly financial. The brains behind the movement (whatever it is) belong to an Egyptian named Al Zawhiri, who first posited the idea of international jihad, as opposed to purely national attempts to impose islamic fundamentalism. Al Zawhiri (so the argument goes) was a very big cheese in Egypt but not wealthy - it took Bin Laden's money to fund the Sept 11th atrocity.

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[gatkinso]

Wiki. Now there is a definitive source only slightly more accurate than Slashdot.

The fact is that AQ was around well before 9-11. The name was used in the media thruout the 90's. Christ the planning for 9-11 started back in 1996 (as far back as can be traced), and they tried to blow up 11 trans-Pacific airliners in 1995.

To say AQ didn't exist until after 9/11 is simply ridiculous.

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[ctid]

The source isn't Wiki, it's a documentary called "The Power of Nightmares". Wiki is just one site which talks about it. There's no debate about Al Qaeda being around for a long time, but what is Al Qaeda? Is it some central organisation that plans terror attacks? Or is it some central organisation that listens to would-be terrorists' plans and decides whether or not to fund them? In other words, are these terrorists "members" of Al Qaeda, or is Al Qaeda just what they dedicate themselves to when they've pulled off an attack? What would happen if Bin Laden and Al Zawhiri were killed? Do you think that would end islamic terrorists in the West? One argument of "the Power of Nightmares" was that it wouldn't; the would-be attackers would simply find another source of funding. Personally, I would be very surprised if Bin Laden and Al Zawhiri had any connection to today's atrocity.

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[Locke2005]

The US forces in Iraq at least make a pretense of not punishing innocent civilians for the acts of others. Half of Americans didn't vote for Bush and half of the English didn't vote for Blair... why should they be punished for the actions of Bush and Blair, even though they might oppose them? Killing people at random is the worse possible way I can think of to win support for your political objectives. Furthermore, most of the insurgents in Iraq aren't even Iraqis!

In my opinion, the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't done everything they could to help the native people and to avoid innocent civilian causualties, so they owe those people at least a sincere appology. But to imply that the occupying forces in Iraq are the moral equivalent of the terrorists is illogical and misguided.

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[Tom]

Welcome to /., Mr. Bush. Allow me to be the first to introduce you to the novel fact that in complicated situations, there are sometimes more than two sides, and more than one solution.

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[Tom]

But to imply that the occupying forces in Iraq are the moral equivalent of the terrorists is illogical and misguided.

Is it really? I dare to say that even if the occupation forces try to avoid civilian casualties, the total civilian bodycount in Iraq and Afghanistan that the US and UK forces are responsible for is still an order of magnitude or two higher than the casualties in NYC, Madrid and London.

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[Locke2005]

And the casualty count from airliner crashes is an order of magnitude higher than the civialian bodycount in Afghanistan and Iraq. Does that make the airline pilots union members terrorists? If you can't distinguish between intentional and accidental deaths, you shouldn't be posting.

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[Tom]

While both a "collateral damage" death and an accident may be unintentional, there is a huge difference between specifically trying to kill someone and hitting the wrong guy, and having an accident during a perfectly non-violent activity.

When you bomb a city, you know that innocent people are going to die. No matter what the PR droids say, there is no such thing as a "clean" war. I don't see how you can compare that with civil aviation and face yourself in the mirror.

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[Locke2005]

I don't see how you can compare war waged in accordance with the Geneva Convention with the terrorists random acts of violence committing against innocent non-combatants and face yourself in the mirror. Which was my original point. Yes, I was against the invasion of Iraq, and I still consider it to have been a huge mistake. Yes, I feel that any "collateral damage" is too much, and that we should be doing more to avoid civilian casualties and to amend our mistakes. I am NOT a Bush supporter, but at some point a country does need to take action to defend itself. The invasion of Afghanistan was arguably justified for the protection of US and other citizens, but that doesn't mean innocent Afghan citizens should suffer for the action of a few of it's (Taliban) political leaders, as at the time the Taliban was probably a better alternative to anarchy.

Re:What will the EU do?

[daveschroeder]

The difficulties in the Middle East aren't to do with `modernization`, whatever that means.

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/101 501_why.html

You need to study the history of the region again, with open eyes, this time. It's been a western plaything for some time now. Pay particular attention to western oil companies.

It appears that it is you who is in need of further study. Your comment about "western oil companies" is particularly telling, as the problems of the mideast are rooted in times much earlier than any in which any oil company, western or otherwise, was ever an influence. See above.

Look at the definition of terrorism:

First line from this article, ironically:

There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism.

These attacks are in revenge for actions against groups that have long been persecuted by those who would take their countries natural resources just to make a quick buck. You can deny this if you like, but you'll have to wake up sooner or later.

Another area you unfortunately misunderstand. You seem to believe that it's all about "making a quick buck", and that if only the West was somehow friendlier or less greedy with regard to the mideast, then Islamic radicalism and Western democracy could peacefully coexist.

There would be untold suffering - not just inconvenience, but all-out suffering and death - of likely millions of people if there was a wholesale collapse of the US (and, in turn, European) economies if there was an interruption in our ability to obtain energy in a stable, secure, predictable, and reasonably priced manner. There would be massive unemployment, massive poverty (by global, not Western, standards), starvation, suffering, and deaths. This is a very real probability in the event of a cascading economic collapse.

Yes, the US and West need to find alternative energy sources. But it also doesn't want to become extinct in the meantime. If you find no value in general Western ideals of freedom, democracy, equality, and liberty, then I am saddened for you. There are no absolutes here. Certainly there have been Western abuses, corruption, and all manner of evil deeds or even inattention at one time or another. But if you believe that Arabs blowing up their Arab brothers and sister and terrorists attacking innocent civilians is a rational, sensible course of action, then our views our fundamentally different.

You may also be interested in knowing that, contrary I'm sure to your belief, the US is not interested in indiscriminately killing Iraqis, and in fact has gone to great lengths to reduce innocent civilian death. However, death is an effect of war. While no solid numbers are available due to infrastructure, accounting, administrative, and other various issues, there has very likely been a significant net preservation of Iraqi life since March 2003, when compared with the 100,000 Iraqis who died each year under sanctions, as a direct result of sanctions, according to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. This preservation includes all Iraqis accidentally killed during the invasion, and Iraqis killed by suicide attacks within Iraq. And this is just from the improvements to infrastructure, sanitation, food and water distribution, and so on, made (primarily) by the Army Corps of Engineers as a matter of course during the process of securing and rebuilding the country. Just because you can cherry-pick examples of deficient rebuilding, errant bombs, or US mistakes resulting in civilian deaths, does not make it the norm, nor does it even represent in even a small way the general US activity in Iraq.

I'm glad you can sit so smugly in your position that the US is wrong for wanting to spread democratic ideals, and those of freedom, including the critical free flow of information - even if the reasoning for some in the US/West is to en

Well...

[Grendel Drago]

The Americans didn't travel all the way across the Atlantic Ocean to kill Brit civilians, in an attempt to encourage them to end the unjust colonial occupation or whatnot. Small difference, there.

If I recall, Ben Franklin went across the pond to mack it with the French ladies and drum up support there, but that was about it.

--grendel drago

Re:Well...

[iminplaya]

The Americans didn't travel all the way across the Atlantic Ocean to kill Brit civilians...

I don't believe travel across the Atlantic was as convenient as it is today. Please don't think for a second that if the situation was reversed today that the Americans won't get just as brutal. In fact the Americans don't need much provocation to go on their killing sprees. Some 100,000 dead Iraqis. 2,000,000 dead Vietnamese. Nobody knows how many dead Central and South Americans. Their is no moral high ground in the war amongst pirates.

Re:Well...

[iminplaya]

Whereas the people listed above did nothing butround up and kill their own countrymen.

So you would feel better if they went outside their borders to do their killing?

I mean Stalin and Polpot were saints compared to us...

I said that? Where? In fact, where did I even inply that? And Stalin was an ally...until he served no further purpose. Kinda like ol' boy...what's his name?...Osama bin Laden Laden? You seem to choose to ignore the fact that we and everybody else will line up with anybody if it serves our needs. You can bet you sweet bippy that if Polpot had been in power and offered us help in Vietnam, we would be right there with him.

Re:Well...

[pommiekiwifruit]

Yes they did! There is at least James Aitken "John the Painter" who tried to burn down Bristol and Portsmouth.

Re:Well...

[dosguru]

Actually, there was a raid by John Paul Jones against his home town (where he was born before his family moved to the colonies). He hit there becuase he knew the harbor and area well, and I think it was a part of the UK that didn't really like the English anyway.

IIRC nobody was hurt or killed, and all he really wanted to do was get some food/beer/water and thumb his nose at the Royal Navy.

He was a uniformed officer acting on the behalf of a democratic Congress who bent over backwards to be a 'legitimate' government in all the ways the governments of the European nation-states acted. Most of his crew however were French or border-line pirates.

Re:Well...

[smittyoneeach]

Well, in Kirkudbright, Scotland, stands a building which has served just about every conceivable function the last few hundred years, including jail.
This lists none other than the Father of the US Navy, John Paul Jones himself, as having cooled his heels therein.
The fishwrapper I got at the building allowed Jones was an "intense bass-player^W^W infamous pirate", which was amusing to me, a US Naval Academy grad, where Jones' body currently resides, swimming in brandy under the chapel.
So, there was a little raiding going on, and we certainly didn't lack intent to commit mayhem.
Note that I haven't researched it; the piracy for which Jones was imprisoned might have pre-dated the Revolution.
Aside--bad week for USNA. We lost two SEALs in the helo in Afghanistan, and VADM Stockdale.
The Almighty rest their souls.

Forgetting history already?

[jmichaelg]

So their rationale du jour is to be taken at face value? Their rationales evolve to fit events. Have you forgotten Bin Laden's 1996 fatwah or his 1998 fatwah? Not a damned thing about Iraq in those calls to arms.

The claim you cite is an example of rationale morphing. Leave Iraq and the rationale for attacking us will change. You're dealing with people who hate us because we're not exactly the same kind of Muslim they are and will use any excuse they can conjur to attack us. Unfortunately, we fund some of them every time we fill our gas tank.

Re:Forgetting history already?

[Eccles]

Have you forgotten Bin Laden's 1996 fatwah or his 1998 fatwah? Not a damned thing about Iraq in those calls to arms.

There's this skill called "reading." Ever heard of it?

From your first link:
"It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience."

From your second:
"First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have formerly debated the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.

The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So now they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors."

Yup, they just attack us because our women don't wear burqas.

Re:What will the EU do?

[AntoniusBloc]

Peeteriz,

First, thank you for your respectful tone. I'm happy we've been able to keep this civil, which does not always happen when such matters are discussed in such forums.

With that said, we may have to agree to disagree, which is fine by me. I think we both have similar objectives but have fundamentally different ways of achieving them, and since I (and presumably you too) have no direct power over the situation it is not worth it to expend too much energy arguing.

>>I believe that terrorism coming from Iraq could be prevented much better through non-war means (spies, special forces) than this questionable war.

I'm partly in agreement, partly not. First, I don't believe that any significant amount of terrorism is currently coming from Iraq. Going into yes, but coming out no. Also, I don't see the worldwide incidence of terrorism as having increased since the US entered Iraq. If anything it seems to have decreased.

As for the part I agree: Although I see spies, special forces, etc. as being war forces, I agree that there needs to be more emphasis on these methods than on regular military. As far as I can tell though a shift towards special forces is occuring although we're way behind on the spying.

>>Afganistan was covering known criminals, Syria and Lebanon have done such things - but I haven't heard Iraq ever being seriously accused for it.

Although it is disputable (what isn't), there is to my mind credible evidence that Husein was harboring terrorists. Also, it is known without a doubt that Husein was supporting Palestinian terrorists (he was publically awarding their family's money).

With regard to the car accidents argument, health care, etc. it seems that we have fundamentally different views of what the federal government is supposed to or can do. Military matters and national security are clearly in the purview of the US Federal Government, and thus spending tax money on the military is justified and in fact constitutionally mandated. No one seriously doubts this. Police patrols are state and local matters, many aspects of automobile safety are at best a state matter, and I'm very wary of any state control of health care (this gives the government way too much control over personal liberties). Moreover, just "throwing a billion dollars" at health care, police, public education, etc. etc. very rarely has the intended affect.

I will also disagree on your assesment of the status of democracy in Iraq. Although rarely covered on the major news outlets (which tend to focus on the handful of hot spots -- Fallujah, Baghdad) the majority of the country is doing quite well and is enjoying peace. Schools, businesses, etc are functioning quite well in most of the country.

Anarchy exists in only a few places and saying that it was better during Husein's reign is like saying at least Mussolini made sure the trains ran on time.

You need a little history

[jscotta44]

You should read history and the current perspectives of the people who lead the terrorists. Leaving them alone will accomplish nothing. If you are speaking about the current groups originating, but not limited to, the Middle East, then you are speaking about a group of leaders who see their "war" on the West ending with the complete destruction of all Western civilization. The West does not believe as they do and they work to exterminate it. Leaving the Middle East alone will only result in their building their power base of operations from which to better organize their attacks. Just as they did in Afghanistan before they were directly attacked. If you think that you will win them over to a peaceful word by leaving them alone, then maybe you should study people like them throughout history. BTW...do not assume that I am speaking about all Middle Eastern or Muslim people here. I am not. But as is normally the case, there are a relatively few people that want to control the rest. Take the constant fighting in Iraq for example. The minority represented by the ousted political party previously run by Saddam Hussien is trying too kill and intimidate the current government and to generally disrupt infrastructure rebuilding within Iraq. It has very little to do with Western Civilization and everything to do with power.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[syslog]

Wow! The response to my post is opening my eyes to how the public thinks. Lets see:

• My post gets modded up high, then gets modded to 0 as being flaimbait. I am sure the moderators were very objective
• A whole bunch of name calling - and not much else of substance - in posts by people who pretend to be "civilized"
• A whole bunch of stereo typing of muslims by people who do not know anything about the muslim religion or culture beyond what the media says

Here is something else to think about:

• Religion is the most easily used tool to push agendas, Osamah used it to push his anti-american agenda, just like Hitler used it to push his anti-jew agenda (actually it was more like anti-everybody-who-is-not-aryan agenda, but whatever)
• Violence begets violece. Osamah killed 3000 innocent people. Bush killed 150,000 innocent people, now more people are dead

I had expected people reading slashdot to have more sense, but I am seeing a lot of the same kind of lame regurgitated rhetoric (kill the muslims, bomb them some more, you are stupid) that I would expect from brainless drones.

Its a sad day for me, I had expected more from fellow geeks.

naeem

Terrorists, separatists and names.

[northcat]

Yeah, the people who did this are "terrorists", but the people who did something similar two days ago here in India are "militants" according to BBC and CNN, and the ones who kill innocent civilians every day in Kashmir are merely "separatists". And let's not even get started on what's happening in Russia. You people seem incredibly hypocritical when you talk about "deaths of innocent people".

Re:Terrorists, separatists and names.

[dancingmad]

Then the tearing down of Babri mosque by Hindu fundamentalists was also terrorism.

Despite the poster's insinuations otherwise, terrorism isn't limited to Islam nor are all Muslim terrorists.

Re:Terrorists, separatists and names.

[northcat]

How the fuck is tearing down a mosque or any building (without people inside) "terrorism"? When the fuck was the definition of "terrorism" changed to "anything you don't approve"?

Best not to give power to evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good for you Londoners out there not letting this bother you. To give these terrorists out there recognition is to give them more power and more recruiting amunition.

As with any evil, the best thing you can do is ignore it and not let it affect you. Terrorists are like spoiled children who believe they are not getting the attention they deserve. London should be celebrating today, but instead, they are dealing with a temper tantrum.

To those of you who have said, "Hope you learned a valuable lesson" or "See Bush was right," aren't you supposed to be outside for recess? I think I hear your mother calling.

It's the attitude of Americans like you that make the rest of us look like idiots. I imagine that you are the last of the 15% still supporting our war on terrorism. Stiffer laws and less civil liberties are exactly the opposite of what we need. Osama came right out and basically said he hopes to bankrupt us while we look for him. So far, it seems to be working.

But I digress. Good luck to you Londoners. There are those of us in America wishing you the best and praying for you. And congrats on the Olympics. I look forward to watching them being broadcast on BBC. w00t.

The G8 touched a nerve.

[Script Cat]

It looks like someone is scared of the plans the G8 has for Africa.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but the G8 wants to disrupt the extremist's imperialism going on in Africa right now. I think this touched a nerve.

Re:I Upset the racist club ...

[PhoenixPath]

Ya know what? Everyone deals with tragedy differently. Claiming your way is better than anothers is intolerant and ego-centric to say the least. People find humor through different situations. If I laugh at a joke concerning a blonde, it does not mean I think all blondes are stupid, vacuous, sluts. Claiming you have a better understanding of humor is the kind of holier-than-thou attitude that makes just about anyoneplain sick. You are better than anyone here who can try and find some humor in tragedy? Those trying to put a brighter light on the darkness? Or are you just plain intolerant, ignorant, and high on yourself? This 'I'm right, you are wrong, no discussion.' attitude of yours is exactly what inspired the 'racism' and sexism' you are pinning on others. And worse, it's that same intolerance that inspires terrorism. Do you realize how close you are? Do you *hate* the people who posted those comments? Does it eat you up inside? If it does, you need help....and you need it *now*.

Royal Marines? Not likely.

[markdowling]

This is not like the SAS storming of the Embassy where there was a siege situation and there would have been time to get military units in place. It is far more likely that police tactical units were involved, if this even happened, as the Met would have to arrange co-operation with the military.

Re:More false-flag nonsense.

[revscat]

Do you think it's possible to have a rational non-breathless discussion about such things? It seems that it's difficult. Honestly, I don't think what he is suggesting is completely unimaginable, and there are certainly people in the world who would abuse patriotism in the way he described.

Lets dig into even deeper bullshit!

[DarkTempes]

I don't believe Hussein is really a 'terrorist'. That word is just so overused.

I think he just suffers from some severe pschological issues. Like being a sick egotistical tyranical man.

Hussein did do ALOT of good in Iraq. Even if he had some downfalls (read: alot of downfalls), he built up alot of the infrastructure in a country that has historically been in the stone ages, and I do believe we put Hussein where he was in the first place. Actually, for all I know, our supporting him into power in the past could have lead to the chain of events that made him such a sick person, corruption by the people arround him, slowly leading to thinking such things were ok, to spawning children that were even WORSE than himself about such things.

I'm not so sure Hussein was the terrorist in Iraq. I think he was an instrument to carry out terrorism in Iraq...for the US. In that theory, the US is the terrorist.

But then again WHO REALLY KNOWS? Finding out REAL information about such people is hard. The media isn't very trustworthy about information (shown time and time again), the government even less so. For all I know Iraq is the 'good guy' and we are the 'bad guy' and we set off bombs in england just to get more support from british citizens.

Re:Propaganda

[rutledjw]

Are you kidding me? He's been saying this from way before we knew his name.

The fact that you're "Insightful" and I'm apparently a "Troll" highlights that at least you're not the only clueless one out there.

Ooh, let's play the aphorism game!

[Grendel Drago]

Hey, I've got a sound bite too! "Those who beat their swords into plowshares will do the plowing for those who don't."

Fun, isn't it?

--grendel drago

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[Politburo]

Hmm, that's why WWII ended because folks sat around tables discussing ways to solve the problems, right?

Please don't put words into my mouth. It's very rude. My post did not discuss WWII, nor did I say that "discussing ways to solve the problems" was the solution. I don't know if you invented this based on commonly held stereotypes, or what.

In any case, if I recall correctly, WWII did not end with the complete destruction of the German and Japanese peoples, nor the complete destruction of the German and Japanese military forces.. so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. In fact, the pacific war almost ended with a conditional surrender by Japan. Do you know how you reach a conditional surrender? That's right: you discuss things. The ultimate surrender still occurred at a table on the USS Missouri.

Oh and nevermind that whole Yalta thing.. they were just hanging out and having some drinks. No discussion took place.

History, you know, kinda has a habit of repeating itself.

That's true, but there are very few, if any, parallels between WWII and the current situation. WWII was a declared war between many nation-states. The current situation, the so-called "War on Terror", is nothing like that. It's a war with an undefined enemy, and an undefined goal.

Re:First Post

[aero2600-5]

No.

By definition, courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online:
Anarchy - 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.

Anarchism - 1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.

Anarchist do not want a world of chaos run by no one. People wanting this and claiming to be anarchists are confused. These are people that are anarchist because it sounds cool. Real anarchists one major belief is that there is no such thing as a government that is good for the people. They may be right.

In an anarchist society, you would not have chaos, mod rule, and random destruction. You would have a people governed by themselves with commitees, organizations, co-operation, and compromise. "a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government."

I don't see an anarchist society ever happening not because it's a bad idea, but because I don't have faith in people in general to not reach for more power. If you want a good example of an anarchist community, read Stephen King's 'The Stand'. In this novel, the community set up in Colorado is a perfect example of a community governed by themselves.

Anarchists would not be responsible for a bombing, only the confused people that claim to be anarchists, but have no idea what anarchism is.

Aero

Assumptions. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Very clever.

But, as is typical with people who use ridicule, you completely fail to actually counter the actual point being made, as though ridicule itself is a valid answer.

Which of us is the unthinking reaction-machine?

Zombies believe without question that they are automatically right in their most basic beliefs. I, however, reached my beliefs by questioning them. Which of us is more likely to have a clue? The one who asks questions or the one who makes dumb jokes?

-FL

Re:Assumptions. . .

[AsbestosRush]

Never one to back down from a challenge, I'll let you in on my reasoning:

QFT:
This happens on the same day that reporters who blew Plame's cover are to stand trial. Looking at news.google.com revelas that the bombing story is pushing the reporter's trial well below where it would normally be in news rankings. Yet another suspicious coincidence involving yet another Bush family member in office under questionable means. I think we all know who the real terrorists are, but are too afraid to speak out against the Bush family due to their unjust power.

Realistically, in the grand scheme of things, Plame is merely a mote. Sandy Burger got away with stuffing his socks full of documents from the national archives, and that was also considered a heinous offense. No one screamed too loudly then either.
The risks involved in something of this nature are too big to take. If you think that *anyone* in a government that leaks secrets about it's own undercover agents and lets people just walk out with classified documents, is going to attempt to pull a covert like this, I'd question their sanity.
The AC reveals that they have another agenda (namely spreding vitrol about Bush) in his statement.
I believe that cover ups are harder to execute, for the simple reason that the execution has to be nearly flawless. There's just too many things that can go wrong, esp concerning the number of people that I would believe would be necessary to get this done.
Cover ups can also lead to blackmail. Anyone who was involved in perpetrating a cover up now has a leg up on the person who asked for it... Now, that's not to say that these guys can't be "eliminated", but then you expand the circle of people who have pieces... I would think that this would lead to more problems, not less.

There's also a decent rule of thumb.. "Never credit to malice anything that can be sufficently blamed on stupidity." Good old American Pragmatism. Love it.

Granted, this is all speculation from a.. how'd you put it... an "unthinking reaction-machine".

To be fair, I don't think that the current government situation in the US is good either, but this statement by the AC, which has no facts, just speculation, reeks of extremeism.
If in 30 years a FOIA case reveals that I'm wrong, hey, I've been wrong before.

And really... name calling? Please.

If you really want to go after people who've done heinous things, lets start with these two:

Ed Kennedy
Bill Janklow

Hmm... Kennedy gets *NOTHING*, and Janklow gets 100 days. If Joe Sixpack were invovled in either of these, they'd have the book thrown at them.

Re:Fucking Animals

[ElfKnight]

If, in your statement, you were to replace the word "you" with "the US administration," then I would agree with you completely.

Fair point - consider it replaced.

Re:Your Sig

[stoborrobots]

Not a bad return on the investment in explosives,...
--
Where's the Kaboom?
There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.

The "Marvin the Martin" quote in your sig is somewhat eerie given the context of this discussion... :-)

As a spanish guy, from Madrid, I'm sorry

[LaBola]

We surrendered, we showed the terrorists the way to go.

Now I'm ashamed.

Re:As a spanish guy, from Madrid, I'm sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are really spanish you should be ashamed, but for making that comment.

Tell our soldiers deployed in Afghanistan that they have surrendered to the terrorists. As you now, as we have just reinforced our military presence in Afghanistan.

Also, tell our armed forces that we have surrendered to the ETA terrorists. As you also now, we have been suffering their attacks for more than 30 years.

It's just that the people from Spain was aware of the difference war fighting the terrorisrs (as in Afghanistan, action that we fully supported, and we still do today) and the war in Irak, that in our opinion had nothing to do with terrorism.

Re:As a spanish guy, from Madrid, I'm sorry

[LaBola]

Claro que soy español y de Madrid, y me despertaban (y me siguen despertando en mi nuevo barrio) las bombas de ETA por las mañanas. Precisamente por eso sé que no hay que rendirse ante el terrorismo.

Pareces el becario de PRISA en Slashdot, repitiendo sus consignas ciegamente.

Sigo estando avergonzado.

Time to take out the garbage...

[Hogwash McFly]

- Calling someone "a pussy" is sexist

No, it's not.

- saying that the french where behind this is racist

No, it's not.

- Anyone who as a minimum of real understanding about those two words ( this obviously dont mean you , at all ) can see what is meant in my reply.

Oh that's just lovely, someone who can barely string a coherent sentence together giving English lessons.

- There whas no joke , hence my reply and point.

Actually, there was a joke. I think everybody on Slashdot except you saw that the original post was a joke.

- The two are unrelated , one is remebering the deceased and good times and someone you knew , the other is a racist comment about people who died in a murdering action. I can make the disertion between the two , I guess you cant.

Jokes at funerals can be both in a negative context and benign, just like the original post. 99% of jokes about death in general aren't trying to be insensitive or belittle the event or even applaud it. You are creating intent when there is none there, just like you are creating racism when there is none there.

- "The French have it bad enough "
Another racist comment based on your obvious lack of education and current knowledge

I don't know what the hell you are talking about, but please shut the fuck up. It is a KNOWN FACT that the French are the butt of many jokes, particularly from the British and the Americans. I stated that fact. You called me a racist. HOW THE FUCK IS MAKING A FACTUAL OBSERVATION ABOUT CURRENT INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE RACIST?

- BTW London aint in France ...

Where in the hell did I say that or even imply it? You are not making any sense.

- As I said I am a Real American , from CANADA.

Where? In your sig?

- There is no morality discussion here

You were the one that started this whole moral debate about morbid humour by jerking that big knee of yours. You also needlessly went off on some racism/sexism tangent that is both irrelevant and inaccurate.

YOU ARE MAKING NO SENSE.

Re:What will the EU do?

[AnObfuscator]

How about just outlawing something as arcane, ignorant, and hateful as religion? Religion's at the heart of almost all violence these days (note that George Bush is an Evangelical Born Again Christian, thus the slaughter in the Middle East).

Great idea. Restrict freedom of thought and expression in the name of "peace" and "security". Yeah, I can see that reducing the amount of war and conflict in society. I mean, the USSR outlawed religion, and look how peaceful and non-violent they were!

I would really think someone advertising "free porn" in his sig would have a bit more respect for freedom of speech.

Let's try this without the typos...

[aero2600-5]

No.

By definition, courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online:
Anarchy - 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.

Anarchism - 1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.

Anarchist do not want a world of chaos run by no one. People wanting this and claiming to be anarchists are confused. These are people that are anarchist because it sounds cool. Real anarchists' one major belief is that there is no such thing as a government that is good for the people. They may be right.

In an anarchist society, you would not have chaos, mob rule, and random destruction. You would have a people governed by themselves with commitees, organizations, co-operation, and compromise. "a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government."

I don't see an anarchist society ever happening not because it's a bad idea, but because I don't have faith in people in general to not reach for more power. If you want a good example of an anarchist community, read Stephen King's 'The Stand'. In this novel, the community set up in Colorado is a perfect example of a community governed by themselves.

Anarchists would not be responsible for a bombing, only the confused people that claim to be anarchists, but have no idea what anarchism is.

Aero

Re:Let's try this without the typos...

[Politburo]

There was a story on NPR's All Things Considered (or maybe Morning Edition) last week about a community similar to what you describe as an "anarchist community". I believe it was in Maine. Given that Stephen King is from that area, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the model for his town in The Stand (I have not read this).

In the NPR story, the town was having problems because no one wanted to perform the duties necessary (code inspector, etc.) to maintain the government. The town was getting ready to petition the State to take over their local government.

iirc, the main problem with these communities is that while they have few local laws, they still have to comply with State laws.

Re:Let's try this without the typos...

[aero2600-5]

I agree with you. Anarchism will be difficult to pull off, regardless. In our complicated world, it's just far too simple a system. Even in Stephen King's novel, it's likely the anarchist society they had would be replaced by a normal town government eventually.

I believe anarchists may be right when they say 'There is no such thing as a government that's good for the people', even if their idea doesn't function much better.

Aero

Who is really behind this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's very interesting that this attack occurs shortly after the media reports that President Bush's approval ratings are slipping despite (or because of?) his recent speeches about the war on Iraq. I also thought it was a strange 'coincidence' that the 9/11 attacks occurred at a time when Bush's approval ratings were low.

I may be in the minority on this one, but I'm not so concerned with Iraq or Saddam or Bin Laden. What worries me is that these terrorist attacks may not have been instigated by Al Qaeda, that there may be someone else pulling the strings. Someone with a very different political agenda.

"So this is how liberty dies..."

(Posted anonymously because Big Brother may be watching)

Politics Section?

[iceborer]

I'm trying to figure out just WTF this act has to do with politics. Now, if there were a section on /. called "Sensless Acts of Brutality"...

Re:Politics Section?

[Gentoo Fan]

Same here. Despite the obvious conclusion that something like this would devolve into a geo-political flamewar, the topic itself has nothing to do with politics. Unless in Zonk's mind, 40 or more people being killed via bombs is just politics. Just more slashdot editor idiocy.

Re:Politics Section?

[KD5YPT]

... I think the reason is that there's no where else to put it. Look to the Sections column, tell me where it's more appropriate?

two things...

[YesIAmAScript]

There were two major factors that triggered 9/11.

First, and the biggest, was our backing of Islamic warriors against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. We sent the CIA to teach them (including Bin Laden) to fight to outst the Soviet Union. Kind of ironic that we boycott and Olympics and train people who would ultimately kill our own over the USSR invading and occupying a country we would later invade and occupy also.

Once the USSR left, we left the Mujahadeen twisting in the wind, warriors willing and able to fight for their beliefs with no one to fight against. Bin Laden then turned on the US, angry about this.

More importantly, the same warriors declared war on the US for invading parts of the Middle East (repelling the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait) and occupying the holiest land of all, the Arabian Penninsula.

These were the biggest factors that led to the attacks on the World Trade Center (both times). But despite all of our foolishness here, the blame lies with Bin Laden/Al Qaeda. Ultimately, they ordered the attacks.

Still, if we hadn't decided to meddle in the Middle East (all the way back to replacing the Shah in Iran) we probably wouldn't have become the target of choice, and 9/11 wouldn't have occured. We really should spend more effort understanding people and less attacking them. Everyone loves to see a bully toppled, so the more we invade countries, the easier it is for our enemies to recruit members.

Re:Fucking Animals

[ElfKnight]

If you were less keen on wiping people out who disagree with you, there might be less people who disagreed with you.

Now there's logic! Only on Slashdot (or the NYT) is that +4.

Oh really? I suppose you think that bombing the crap out of people brings their neighbours around to your point of view?

Re:This was innevitable

[porcupine8]

... And would you blow up your fellow Latvians just to try and scare the invaders away?

Wow!

[PonyHome]

This is the first article I've seen that has slashdotted Slashdot!

Re:Propaganda

[TamMan2000]

Are you kidding me? He's been saying this from way before we knew his name.

The point of my post, which you appearantly missed, is that stated motivations, and true motivations don't have to match, and in the case of most public figures taking public actions, they ussually don't match. The fact that he has been saying it for a long time only proves he is a good politician and is staying "on message", it says absolutly nothing about his true motivations.

Remember that he was more than happy to get help from the CIA until the '91 gulf war and the placement of western soldiers in the arabian peninsula? He certainly was not saying these things about Americans (perhaps Russians) prior to '91. So either you haven't known his name as long as some of us have, or you have a poor recollection of history. I hope it is the former...

Nice joke, but. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

FL - do you get a discount on bulk purchases of aluminum foil?

As is typical with people who use ridicule, you completely fail to counter the actual point being made, as though the ridicule itself is a valid answer.

Which one is the unthinking reaction-machine?

--The one who asks questions or the one who makes ridiculing jokes?

A zombie believes without question that it is automatically right in its most basic beliefs. By contrast, a person of integrity reaches their beliefs by questioning their beliefs, killing sacred cows, and generally boiling down the data.

-FL

Re:Nice joke, but. . .

[rlp]

Which one is the unthinking reaction-machine?

--The one who asks questions or the one who makes ridiculing jokes?

I'd say the one who responded to a barbaric terrorist attack with lunatic conspiracy theories is the unthinking one.

Re:Nice joke, but. . .

[RichardX]

Which one is the unthinking reaction-machine?

--The one who asks questions or the one who makes ridiculing jokes?

I'd say the one who responded to a barbaric terrorist attack with lunatic conspiracy theories is the unthinking one.

Personally, I'd say that it seems extremely unlikely that 9/11 was some kind of false flag operation, and it would take a large amount of damn solid evidence and plenty of applied critical thinking to convince me otherwise...
However, the parent has a point - jumping to conclusions helps nobody.. from what I see, nobody has even asked the parent for his/her evidence for this claim. Everyone's merely assuming that there is none.
Parent - what evidence DO you have, just out of interest?

The main problem with approaching something like this is making sure your evidence is high quality, and that you're interpreting it correctly. It's VERY common for things to be misread.. for example, some people take the manner in which the towers collapsed on 9/11 to be evidence that explosives were used in the buildings, but in fact their collapse was entirely consistent with what would be expected in that situation.
Likewise, the thing about JFK's head jerking the "wrong way" proving the bullet came from somewhere else - in fact, as unintuitive as it seems, his head moved exactly the RIGHT way. Penn & Teller demonstrate this wonderfully in one of the episodes of their "Bullshit" show. Or to give yet another example, some people think that the fact no stars show up in photos from the moon landing means they are faked.

Even so though, be careful what you just dismiss out of hand. Saying "Pffth! That's impossible! It could never have happened! I don't even need proof, because I know it for sure" is just as bad as saying "Pffth! Terrorists! yeah, that's what they WANT you to think. It was actually the gubmint and the illuminati and the aliens! I don't even need proof, because I know it for sure!"

I'm not sure really what the point of this little rant is now. Just pretend I wrote something really inspiring and meaningful on how everyone should learn and apply the art of critical thinking to their lives as much as possible.

Re:Jay Leno. . .

[ILoveFreedom]

"faulty stories I have heard on the news?"... Where did you get your information from? Quoting Jay Leno! There's a quality source... Oh by the way, I know alot about what is going on in Iraq. I just got out of the Marine 3 months ago after spending 2 years in Iraq myself.. Less mature - please. At least I didn't have to bring this up in my conversation... Oh btw, every government in the world has their own version of "black ops" and "shadow government"... Moving on... The beauty of freedom and democracy is the right to free speech! So I will leave this conversation as is... Two people who totally disagree on topics! Peace...

Ah, you forgot the Jews.

[Grendel Drago]

You forgot that the bad guys will (reportedly) refer to the foreign troops as "the Jews". Also, "crusaders", but "the Jews" is popular.

--grendel drago

Re:Fucking Animals

[kevinbr]

The problem here is that there is a theme in US presesnt mythology that they are a force of good irrespective of any reality on the ground - the reality usually being dead babies.

It is interesting to see the difference in coverage between some dead Afghans killed by a fit of pique after taliban killed some soldiers so the mighty war machine of the US cranked up the B-52s and wasted some babies. Coverage? Zip. How many dead? Quite a few.

Now we see London. more dead civilians. Lots of coverage. No context. No cause - effect. No analysis that we killed them for hundreds of years and now they have figured out how to kill a few of us at home.

Killing Killing Killing. Mindless on both side. But both sides feel their killing is blessed and redemptive. Both sides are run by loons of the highest orders.

The texture of a dead baby killed by a B-52 fragmentation bomb and the texture of a dead baby killed by a bomb in London - well they are both dead bloody and squishy, and they both have parents who long for revenge - bloody revenge.

But we in the West live our fantasy about our redemptive destruction and collateral damage. Whoops, sorry dead baby dude! We killed you to be free.

Amen...

[Seng]

Religious zealots need to be done away with...

Sorry UK

[speedbump]

Most of us are sorry for your tragic loss of lives, UK.

I think the best response to this is not a greater tightening of civil liberties, but to simply continue bringing McDonald's to the Middle East, and to continue college-educating their women.

History's lessons

[Man_Holmes]

If you look at all recorded history you find that peace only came about as a result of strength. You either intimidate your opponent or you kill him.

Suing for peace, sympathizing with your enemy and looking at what you might have done to upset him haven't worked.

British prime minster, Neville Chamberlin, tried to sue for peace with Hitler and failed. Winston Churchill who took his country to war succeeded.

Al Qaeda are monsters. You don't negotiate or sympathize with monsters.

Man Holmes

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[SimianOverlord]

Abu Abbas was never trained in Iraq. He sheltered there for a time, granted. Parent is trying to inflate Iraq into a terrorist centre pre Coalition action, which is demonstrably false.

And I guess those $25,000 checks Saddam wrote to the families of Palestinian bombers weren't an endorsement of terrorism either.

And I guess all that domestic US funding of the IRA in the early 80's that your own government turned a blind eye to means the UK can invade the USA? Money that went to buying bombs that killed UK citizens? What about Saudi Arabia, and it's funding of various illegitimate terrorist groups? Don't try to make out Saddam's action are anything astonishing or unexpected in that region.

Is the US's continual funding of Israel not a support for terrorism? The IDF certainly kills civilians.

Re:Only 7 bombs?

[Atzanteol]

who was retaliating? At this point is it even clear who was the 'original' aggressor? Does it even matter anymore?

Re:giant sheet of glass

[L0k11]

oh sure, because that will not cause a massive surge in retaliatory attacks... people from the mideast are our neighbours and fellow citizens... nothing like nuking all of their relatives and hoping that ends the violence

my first reaction to this was i hope they hunt down the bastards that did this and kill them

but thats not what i really want, maybe the "war on terror" will be forced to get back on track...

it was of course perverted into an attack on a "contained" iraq, killing multitudes of civilians (100 000 according to the lancet), and dragging us into a quagmire that has distracted us from dealing with the terrorists that were actually attacking us... anyone remember that most of the 9/11 hijackers were saudi?

i dont know, its all been said before... all i really wanted to say is that I have sympathy for the victims of this attack and I hope our leaders unite and get on to the task of fighting terror instead of creating it

Re:What will the EU do?

[kevinbr]

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

Well here is one sample that refutes your bullshit grasp of history:

"Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the cost of policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit the potential of modern technology. This strategy had particular relevance to operations in Iraq. On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail *the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death...for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.*

Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.* Henry Wilson shared Churchills enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause *only discomfort or illness, but not death* to dissident tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and *kill children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.*

Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented *by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly*. In the event, gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect* though gas shells were not dropped from aircraft because of practical difficulties [.....]

Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being bombed and machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the Korak mountains commented, seventy years after the event: *They were bombing here in the Kaniya Khoran...Sometimes they raided three times a day.* Wing Commander Lewis, then of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls how quite often *one would get a signal that a certain Kurdish village would have to be bombed...*, the RAF pilots being ordered to bomb any Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein, Squadron-Leader Kendal of 30 Squadron recalls that if the tribespeople were doing something they ought not be doing then you shot them.*

Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale, also of 30 Squadron: *If the Kurds hadn't learned by our example to behave themselves in a civilised way then we had to spank their bottoms. This was done by bombs and guns.

Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that *The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.* It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and Kurdistan were also useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry drew up a list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and air-to-ground missiles:

Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock] man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons were first used in Kurdistan.

Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *Iraq: From Sumer to Saddam*.

The point of terrorism.

[Grendel Drago]

The point of terrorism is not to inspire fear. Nobody likes fear so much that they want to go to such lengths just for that. Individual bullies, yes. Large, semi-professional organizations, no.

Terrorism is the use of fear, most commonly achieved through violence, in order to effect a political goal. Hamas's stated goal is to drive the Israelis into the sea, and make their future nation of Palestine an Arab and possibly Islamic state. Al Qaeda's stated goal is to remove the influence of the "decadent west" from Islamic lands, and halt the tide of modernization, and thence create a pan-Arab great big Muslim kingdom, sorta like they had a thousand years ago.

--grendel drago

Re:Fucking Animals

[ElfKnight]

Perhaps you could tell that to the families of those who died on 911.

Sure - when you've explained to them why their government responded to that tragedy by going to war with a country that had nothing to do with it.

Reminding us that bad things happened to innocent people does not automatically win arguments, nor does it excuse governments from actually justifying their actions.

I am also sure that the families are smart enough to want useful action, not a vague declaration of "war" against "some bad guys, somewhere"

Re:What will the EU do?

[M$ Mole]

I'm glad you can sit so smugly in your position that the US is wrong for wanting to spread democratic ideals, and those of freedom, including the critical free flow of information - even if the reasoning for some in the US/West is to encourage governments and peoples who are friendly to the West, and therefore more likely to ensure a continuing stable supply of energy.

Reasoning for some? If that reasoning was for less than the majority, I'm pretty sure that we would have already removed one of the most oppressive, fundamentalist regimes in the region - we call the country Saudi Arabia. I'm not arguing that terrorism shouldn't be fought, or that it is generally true that it is very uncommon for democratic nations to attack one-another, so there would appear to be logic in spreading democracy, but to say that "some" only want to spread democracy for this Realpolitik type of reasoning is either misleading or naive. The vast majority of people in Washington and London that believe in spreading democracy via the sword believe in it for exactly that reason.

History is a bitch.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fear is a means to an end. Bin Laden talked about using terror to incite governments to violent responses, leading to an escalating path of violence that he believes will ultimately end in a secular v. Muslim war where Islam, being backed by God, will of course triumph.

And my relatives wonder why I'm a Unitarian. "

Well I'm an American, and in the name of all that's American, I'll start a campaign to bomb the planet. Now according the logic used on this forum, I represent all Americans, and therefore all Americans should be hated, and feared.

Hmmm...here's a big clue for everyone here. Saying you are, doesn't make you one. Bin Ladin and his followers doesn't represent Islam, or any other religion. Bin Ladin represents himself, and that's it.

Maybe this forum would gain a better prespective by educating themselves about Islam (in this day and age, there's no excuse for not knowing), and listen to what the majority moderates have to say on the situation.

Re:History is a bitch.

[GCP]

Maybe this forum would gain a better prespective by educating themselves about Islam ...and listen to what the majority moderates have to say on the situation.

Okay, fine. Since we're constantly told that there are more than a BILLION muslims, and you seem to want us to believe that the "majority moderates" (the majority of more than a billion is more than half a billion) oppose Bin Ladin, let's see what happens next.

We've seen how many people in the Muslim world will protest over reports of the desecration of a copy of the Koran, so let's see whether they are more or less outraged by Al Qaeda's intentional mass murder of civilians in the name of Islam and Allah.

If the "no murder of civilians in our name" protests look like they represent more than half a billion people, we've definitiely learned something, as you suggest.

However, if the "no murder of civilians in our name" protests don't come close to the scale of the "no desecration of our sacred book" protests, I think we'll see for ourselves (yet again) the real values and priorities of the majority of the Muslim world without need of instruction from you.

Re:History is a bitch.

[cygnusx]

However, if the "no murder of civilians in our name" protests don't come close to the scale of the "no desecration of our sacred book" protests, I think we'll see for ourselves (yet again) the real values and priorities of the majority of the Muslim world without need of instruction from you.

I appreciate the spirit of your post, however both you are the grandparent are simplifying the situation. When the GP says 'listen to what the majority moderates have to say on the situation' it is a red herring because there are no moderates in the Muslim world (except I guess in Turkey) -- it's either corrupt governments/royal families trying to stay in power or murderous jihadists thugs.

As for what the 'muslim street' thinks -- I am sorry if this sounds condescending but the majority of them will think whatever their mosque imam tells them to think. The minority who _can_ think on their own would rather keep their mouth shut than face (violent or, more commonly subtle social) reprisals.

The *big* problem facing Muslims is that most of them went to schools that taught a mediaeval syllabus and as such are out-of-touch with the world. (In India, for example, many Muslims were left out of the IT boom because they didn't get the Math+Science+English education in madrassas -- and Indian Muslims are actually better off than many in the Middle East/North Africa).

Thomas Friedman at the NYT wrote a very decent set of articles about how people who are busy making money tend not to blow things up. By the same rationale, people who see the world pass by them will be _much_ more inclined towards acts of violence.

It's easy to say 'Nuke 'em all.' The challenge is to figure out how to productively bring the muslim street out of the middle ages so the thugs who want to blow things up become a small enough minority that their own societies can take care of them (just like mainstream US society can take care of the KKK). Democracy is one way (which is one reason why I support the action in Iraq) but it'll need a *lot* more faith and a United West before Democracy takes seed through the Middle East.

Re:History is a bitch.

[Pseudonym]

I am sorry if this sounds condescending but the majority of them will think whatever their mosque imam tells them to think.

That is condescending. It's much more likely that the vast majority of them will barely think about it at all, much like what the average American or Briton thinks about third world poverty.

Re:History is a bitch.

[uncqual]

There is a big difference between the personal impact of what a Briton or American thinks about third world poverty and the personal impact of a resident of a Middle Eastern country blindly following the lead of their mosque's imam.

In the former case, it really does not have a significant affect on the life and future of the American or Briton or their children (think about it, if every hungry third world person vaporized at midnight, the main effect on the American or Briton would be a reduction in requests for charitable donations and a reduction in taxes to feed the now vaporized people).

In the latter case, the selection affects the voter and their family directly - make one decision and your kid may end up memorizing the Quran, and blowing themselves up on a bus somewhere, make the other decision and the same kid may end up with a BSc in biology and contribute to finding a cure for some form of cancer.

Yep, politically incorrect. Nope, not condescending (it is just brutal reality).

Note that someone in America who insists their kid get an education devoid of prevailing scientific theory because their spiritual advisor tells them to is being pretty stupid also.

(Yes, in fact I do offend on an equal opportunity basis -- and proudly so)

As soon as we can see clearly,

[bmalia]

Through our big black eye, Man, let's light up their world, like the fourth of july! -TK

This could have been done by one person

[Steve Hosgood]

I've not lived in London for 25 years, but I used to know the tube network like the back of my hand. I'm sure it's possible to do all this single-handed. Something like this:

1) Start by heading west on the Met line.
2) Leave bomb #1 on that train, get out at Moorgate.
3) Get back on the Met going the other way and leave bomb #2.
4) Get out at Liverpool St, change to Central.
5) Get off at Holborn, change to Piccadilly northbound.
6) Leave bomb #3 on that train, get out at Russell Square. All the bombs were timed for 09:45, and bomb #3 goes off whilst the bomber is still leaving Russell Square. (So do all the others, but she'll not notice.)

The westbound met line train has reached Edgeware Rd, the east bound has turned around at Aldgate East (ISTR that they do that?) and blows up nearly back at Liverpool St.

Question: Do you have time to do steps #4 and #5 in this interval? How long does it take to get to Edgeware Rd from Moorgate these days? It was about 15-20min last time I did it IIRC.

Meanwhile, our bomber's had a narrow escape at Russell Sq:

7) At street level, bomber walks north towards Kings Cross, and gets on the #30 bus.
8) What happens next isn't clear. Some reports are of a suicide attacker. So maybe the lone attacker's bomb #4 goes off whilst she's still on the bus - is that deliberate, or an accident?

Steve

Re:This could have been done by one person

[christophersaul]

Why do you assume the bomber's a 'she'?

Re:This could have been done by one person

[Steve Hosgood]

Following up my own post: I've found better timing information on the BBC's web site.

Apparently Bomb #1 went off at 09:17 at Edgeware Rd. Bomb #2 went off at 08:51 outside Liverpool St, and bomb #3 at 08:56 just past Russell Sq.

Bomb #4 at 09:47 was the one on the bus.

This all rather spoils my suggested "bomber's plan" above, as there's an unexplained 50 minutes between getting out of Russell Sq. and getting on that bus. Additionally, it looks like it's taken too long for the train to get to Edgeware Rd from Moorgate after step #2.

So maybe the metline bombs weren't planted at Moorgate and Liverpool St.

Anyone got an actual timetable? Reverse engineering the most likely attack route might be 1) interesting and 2) help catch the b****rd who did this.

( Assuming the b****rd who did it isn't in the wreckage of the #30 bus of course. )

Steve.

Thank-you for contributing.

[Fantastic Lad]

And if that isn't enough to convince you, here's another tidbit of information. GEORGE BUSH IS PRESIDENT,AND TONY BLAIR IS HIS BITCH

Ah, I see. Yes, thank-you. Your argument is made all the more convincing by this.

I'm sorry, but the best way to deal with this is to throw money and not words at the problem. More police, more cameras, more spies, more bribes. Politicians create legislation because that's in their budgets. Guns, bombs and cloak and dagger make people squeamish. If it is freedom and saftey you value, then you must pay the price for it.

People like you give me the heebie-jeebies. Even your paragraph structure is weirdly wrong.

-FL

Re:Thank-you for contributing.

[Fantastic Lad]

What else would you suggest? Do nothing and continue as always? You know by the nature of politics this cannot happen and the government will feel the need to take "action" as spurred by the masses. The critical input is -what- action is to be taken.

The problem is believing the lies.

If people didn't embrace the falsehoods, then psychopathic leaders would not rise to the tops of all the power structures.

This lesson and the many painful ones to follow are the way we learn as souls not to give up our minds to others for the sake of easy answers.

The best solution would be to remove the current leadership in the U.S., drive out the elitists, and dismantle all the corrupt systems. If everybody were wise and awake, this could happen easily and bloodlessly and almost automatically. But the reason we are all here is that we are not all wise and awake. We learn those qualities by living through the misery which results from not being wise and awake.

--And part of learning is to talk openly about the events which are unfolding around us.

-FL

As a member....

[GlobalEcho]

As a member of the Globalized Corporate Oligarchy, let me just say that we have the U.S./Costa Rican/Chinese/Azerbaijanian Shadow Government under our complete control.

I can state unequivocally that 9-11 was not the work of our pawns.

However, our control of the Australian/South African/Polish Shadow Government has always been tenuous at best, and of course they have always had the motivation and resources for these sorts of things.

The rest of the world's Shadow Governments have generally been spending the last few decades implementing our labor reform acts and performing corporate audits, so of course they are beyond suspicion.

We in the Globalized Corporate Oligarchy seek to implement our vision statement across all of our puppets (shadow governments and media machines alike) in order to bring new exciting products that add value for all our stakeholders and customers. We apologize for the inconvenience of this attack.

Re:terrorist heads of state

[elhaf]

Well, if you're only going to count torture, chemical weapons, and invading countries as terrorism, the I guess you're right, Bush isn't a... wait, something about depleted uranium, Abu Ghraib, Iraq... never mind.

Re:Very Sad

[Ubergrendle]

Its called "gallows humour" and is a very natural and human reaction. It is unnatural and unhealthy to try and absorb and empathize with the enormity of a situation as tragic as this all at once.

Hey, I'll offer some historical examples of some good jokes, which may or may not be apocryphal....

Peter Lorre and Vincent Price at Bela Legosi's Funeral:
(long pause) Lorre - "Do you think we should put in a stake...you know, just to be sure?"

On Oscar Wilde's deathbed - "This room looks atrocious...either that wallpaper has to go or I do."

There's lots of others...feel free to add to the thread. :)

Re:Jay Leno. . .

[LokiFoo]

Fnord!

Re:I Upset the racist club ...

[Waffle Iron]

Of course "Etats-Unians" is just as unspecific as "American". There are dozens of countries around the world formed as a union of smaller territories.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[databyss]

Yes, we'll stop refering to our country as America when the rest of the world starts refering to China as The People's Republic of China, and Russia is properly called The Russian Federation.

It's a shortened title, it's not arrogance at claiming an entire continent.

Besides, most Americans don't call it America, we call it "The US", which doesn't even have the word America in it.

So, if you want to raise awareness about this misappropriation of a name, know what you're talking about.

Side Note: I find it funny how the guys sig says he's a "REAL American" cause he lives in North America, yet it implies that those in the US aren't real Americans, even though they too live in North America.

he stopped what?

[YesIAmAScript]

Bush stopped the attacks from happening for 4 years?

Prove it.

You're going on blind faith there. Or are you just measuring years? If you're measuring years, was Clinton then better against terrorism than Bush because there were longer intervals between the attacks during his time?

I personally would just say that the attacks happened when they did because of the timing attackers, not the president in charge at the time. And the war on terror has just been a diversion, it hasn't changed things at all. Yes, we do thwart a few attacks, but we did that before too. Al Qeada didn't suddenly get the resources during Bush's presidency to attack the US more frequently or more effectively.

In my mind, terrorism is fairly easy to commit. Look at McVeigh. The best way to reduce it is to stop spurring people to commit the acts, not to try to restrict the entire populace to stop them.

Look at Britain. They had almost weekly attacks from the IRA for a decade, was an increase in security responsible for the next 10 years having virtually no attacks? No, it was a more roundabout solution that attacked the roots of the problem.

We are completely failing to go after the roots of the problem. Roots which were never in Iraq, by the way. We started to work on the problem with our efforts in Afghanistan, but we had to scale back those efforts because of the unnecessary war in Iraq. It's very disappointing.

Also disappointing is people like you who measure the success of our government's efforts against terrorism by the number of times they (or someone else) fails to stop an attack. If we got attacked daily, Bush would be the best terror fighter ever?

Re:You have to learn history before you can ignore

[Martin Blank]

Bin Laden's biggest complaint has for years been the presence of "Crusader" or "Christian" soldiers in Saudi Arabia, which is home to Mecca and Medina. The support of the House of Saud is secondary. How seriously Algeria factors into things, I don't know, but I suspect that even the Muslim world didn't pay so much attention to it, as the Algerians basically kept the issue internal, with the Algerian terrorist groups only relatively recently announcing affiliation with al Qaeda.

Syria is a very mixed bag, though. Even as they provided some support against terrorists, they maintained their stranglehold on Lebanon and support for Hezbollah. While they turned over intelligence, they started a flamewar over the security of the Syrian border with Iraq. Neither side handled things as well as they could have, but Syria doesn't exactly have a collective halo over it.

The proper way to fight terrorism

[ThinWhiteDuke]

Here

If you're (still) in a frog-bashing mood, don't bother to click the above link. It says good things about the French.

What I gather from this article is that you don't fight terror by invading unrelated countries. You fight terror through boring, tedious and frustrating police and intelligence work. You share resources and information with your allies, you try to outwit the terrorists.

I think it was John Kerry who got bashed for saying something along the lines "I don't think we can ever win the war on terror, but we can reduce it to a mere nuisance". He was spot on. And the guys this article mention are doing just that. Their cost is several orders of magnitude below the cost of the Iraq war and I think they are far more effective.

Invading Iraq was a huge mistake as far as terrorism is concerned. Proponents of this war tend to present a false dichotomy. It was invading Iraq or doing nothing. This is wrong. The choice was between invading Iraq and setting up more of this kind of counter-terrorist cells.

Re:The proper way to fight terrorism

[sgt_doom]

Outstanding post. As for this "war on terror" where is Osama and why hasn't Bushie Wushie gotten him? And why does the Bush administration give arms to the biggest support of terrorism, Pakistan??? Too many whys and not constructive action on terror by this "do-nothing" administration who just wants to circumvent the rights of American citizens.

I have nothing against honest draft-dodgers - it's the sniveling cowards like Cheney and Bush who turn this real American's stomach.

Re:The proper way to fight terrorism

[ThinWhiteDuke]

You forced me to Google it. It was Kerry, as I thought. Interestingly, this quote was used by the Bush campaign to illustrate how much Kerry was out of touch with what the world had became. Yet you thought it was Bush who said it.

Whoever said it, it makes a lot of sense. But what do YOU think now that you know Kerry said it?

Re:The proper way to fight terrorism

[hidispenser]

You fight terror through boring, tedious and frustrating police and intelligence work.

Except when that law enforcement wishes to look at your library records and bookstore purchases, in which case, they and their mission can go screw!!

Re:EAT UP ALL THAT ELITE PROPAGANDA, BOYS!

[mackil]

uhhh... ok..... ummm.... moooooooo

And I thought all that jerking and twitching was elaborate dance moves. How misguided I was...

Not Even Close

[nrlightfoot]

Last year the number of terrorist attacks worldwide more than tripled, from a record of 175 in 2003 to 655 in 2004. That certainly doesn't sound like a successful "war on terror" to me.

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:Not Even Close

[ebresie]

Regretfully, I don't have a link for this, but based on something I heard on the radio previously, the indication are that the number of attackes have increased because they formalized their definitions on what is considered a terrorist attack. Also inclusion of Iraqi attacks, Russian theater attack, etc now get included.

Re:Not Even Close

[horza]

The fact is that retaliation against police and judges have only increased in Italy since they tried to fight the Mafia. If only people would stop trying to do the right thing then everybody would be happy bunnies, frolicking around in world peace. We should be more tolerant about allowing brutal repression and genocides around the world, because surely if we close our eyes it will all go away...

I, personally, am grateful for the sacrifices the US is making. After years of introversion and non-intervention they are trying at last to make the world a better place. I hope they don't listen to the short-term cynics and can stay the course. Let history judge, and I'm sure the world will be belatedly grateful.

Phillip.

Re:Not Even Close

[jpietrzak]

After years of introversion and non-intervention they are trying at last to make the world a better place. I hope they don't listen to the short-term cynics and can stay the course. Let history judge, and I'm sure the world will be belatedly grateful.

Not gonna happen. I'm not saying that the US won't be able to stay the course -- I'm saying that the world will NEVER be grateful, regardless of the outcome.

Personally, I don't believe your analogy with the Mafia is a good one, as the London terrorists seem to have very different motivations. But it doesn't matter; you're right, the US can use its power to control these people. Many times in the past, a single country has been able to use force to impose its will on the populations of other countries: think of Rome's "Pax Romana", or of the British Empire. These efforts do in fact create peace! But, of course, it is at a cost...

You can use military force to stop various groups of people from doing things you don't want them to do. But you can't make them like it. All the histories that I've seen seem to celebrate the end of empires, rather than rue their loss.

--John

Re:Not Even Close

[sp3d2orbit]

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.

Lets not oversimplify things. Your logic pretends that if left alone, the Islamic jihadists would leave us alone. Look at last 1400 years of history. Islamic fundmentatlists don't want to leave the rest of the civilized world alone. Quite the contrary. As medieval Europe sat paralyzed Islamic hordes repeatedly tried to conquer our western asses, even taking most of Spain for many years.

If the thousand years of violence 663 AD - European Renaisance aren't relevant to your over simplyfied argument, perhaps modern day Afghanistan will jog your memory. Women forced to wear burqa, Buddhist blown up, all forms of transmittable media destroyed. What did the peace loving Buddhists do to deserve their ancient holy shrines destroyed?

Re:Not Even Close

[sp3d2orbit]

+5, Insightful?

What really surprises me about this comment is not the naivite of the comment itself but the fact that people thought this particular comment with no discernable links or references found itself t a +5, Insightful rating.

I under stand that it is currently fashionable for my fellow slashdotters to embrace the counter-culture notion that the war on terror is "uncool". But really now, lets put our preconceived notions aside when moderating for Chirst's sake lest this become a sounding board for the a vocal homogenity. Oh, wait...

Re:Not Even Close

[NeMon'ess]

If we did a better job as a "police force" the people in the countries we invade would have been happy to see us. Bush and his advisors screwed up Afghanistan by not giving the country enough resources to rebuild and protect itself from the warlords and everyday criminals. The people there don't like us for leaving their country a mess. So the people become easier recruits for Al Qaida. We pulled our troops out of Afghanistan too quickly so we could take over Iraq because they actually have oil. Then since there wasn't enough post-invasion planning done ahead of time, Iraq went to hell and the people there are easy recruits.

I have no problem with nation building so long as there is actual building happening, not just invasions to enrich corporations.

The object of war is a more perfect peace.

[WD_40]

Reality check: As long as there are humans on the Earth, they will fight with eachother.

If you want to be at peace, you have to be prepared to destroy those who attack you.

WAR is NOT the OPPOSITE of PEACE

[mattnuzum]

War is not the opposite of peace. Peace is a state of mind, and the opposite of peace is unrest. When people experience unrest they respond in different ways; one such way is war.

War is a corrective action utilized to restore peace by removing the cause of unrest. Sometimes it is used appropriately, other times it is not. For example, the French revolution was a war to correct the imbalance between aristocracy and commoners. I doubt that there was any other way to start this corrective process that would have yielded better results.

Compare war to a fever. Your body uses a fever as part of the process to fight off an infection. You don't cure the fever, you cure the infection, which then causes the fever to leave. Likewise, you don't stop a war, you find the root cause of unrest, solve this to restore peace, and then war will naturally end. *In theory*

Sometimes, no satisfactory compromise can be found; such is the case when two people groups adamantly want exclusive occupation of a certain place on the map.

It is a myth that we will someday have world peace. It is against our nature to be 100% satisfied with the status quo; there will always be pressure, there will always be unrest, discontent and inequality. We can sooner eradicate all testosterone from the world than achieve world peace.

You see, the same conditions that can bring about war also can bring about progress and great achievement!

I do *not* condone violence as a means of expression, such as used in terrorism. Terrorism is not war, it is a way for someone with little power (aka influence) to get heard, similar to the way a particular person may become the "squeaky wheel" in order to get extra attention.

As a matter of fact, I consider terrorism to be a great cause of unrest (think of all the people in London who will be afraid of the mass-transit system now) and needs to be quickly and thoroughly dealt with.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[Bozzio]

Side Note: I find it funny how the guys sig says he's a "REAL American" cause he lives in North America, yet it implies that those in the US aren't real Americans, even though they too live in North America.

I know. He's an idiot.

Remember, however, that I don't give a crap what you call yourself. I'm just saying that it affects others because many people live in AmericaS. Shortening to The People's Rublic of China or The Russian Federation to Russia does not affect other Chinas or other Russias.

Anyway.. I, again, don't care if you guys call yourself America.. I was just trying to clarify that moron's point... (don't ask me why).

Also, the arrogance associated with the US has nothing to do with calling yourselves "America".. it has mostly to do with Bush, Clinton, and Bush.

It must suck to be labeled as arrogant simply because you guys have an idiot President at the moment.

Re:Condolences

[Chef_TM]

Nuke the Middle East? Even as a 'blow off steam' statement that is a remarkably stupid thing to say at a time like this. And as for being a 'solution' to islamic fundamentalist terrorism, what about all the other islamic communities ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660411.stm ) in western countries all over the world? Ethnic Cleansing? Concentration Camps?

Re:What will the EU do?

[IngramJames]

Prosperity begins at home; nobody will bring it to you on a silver platter. If you want it, you earn it.

I seeee..... so your plan for African states goes along these lines:
1- Get lots of weopons
2- invade Europe, build prosperous empire
3- Profit!

After all, that's how we did it. The UK doesn't have nearly enough natural resources to support the levels of wealth created by the British Empire; it was warfare to create trade that did the trick.

Perhaps the Africans could invade Europe for the right to sell us Opium? That worked out very profitable for the British.

Your argument assumes a level playing field. A better analogy would be:
- a very intelligent child born born in rural Africa has every chance of becoming rich and successful as a moderately intelligent child born to wealthy parents in the US with family contacts at Harvard, for a guaranteed place.

By your argument, the fact that the child in Africa remains in poverty its whole life because it never learned to read is entirely the fault of the child, and the government which cannot afford to buy books for it or pay teachers, because it's too busy paying off debts to countries already rich.

Re:EAT UP ALL THAT ELITE PROPAGANDA, BOYS!

[Xiver]

It doesn't matter that 100 people dropped dead of sudden heart attack in England today. And that 100 will drop dead of sudden heart attack in England tomorrow, and the next day. And the next, etc.

I feel for the 200, but they were not murdered.

And it doesn't matter that we could take all that money from the war machine budget and use it to cure sudden heart attacks and cancer

Money does not equate to a cure for anything.

All that matters is that the elite can use this little bombing to SCARE YOU

YOU scare me.

You ain't nuttin' but meat machines, nuttin' but domesticated livestock, swimming in an elite-friendly culture evolved by decades of elite propaganda, and heeding the call of your CorpGovMedia masters

You're going to have to explain to me exactly which propaganda to which you refer.

Can someone please mod down this troll?

[Rayonic]

"Shadow Government" "U.S. population is extremely ignorant" "9-11 was deliberately manufactured"

How much more obvious can this troll be?

Re:Can someone please mod down this troll?

[Cyno]

You're just scared their perspective on reality might have some truth behind it. Unlike Fox's.

freedom fries
cover statue breasts with flag
cover Sadam's statue with flag
ban flag burning while recommending proper flag disposal by burning
blame terrorist attacks on Iraq
Terri Shivo
Enron
Delay
WMD
PATRIOT ACT

All I've seen from the right is a bunch of hypocracy and lies.

I'd rather talk about what they don't want to hear for a while. I'd rather shove my 9" liberal cock down all your Republican Christian throats! You know you deserve it after what you put us through. Using the tragedy of 9/11 to spread your gospel is pure blasphemy and you know you're so going to hell for it. I hope you burn patrioticly, you traitors of truth and justice!

Re:Can someone please mod down this troll?

[kz45]

Using the tragedy of 9/11 to spread your gospel......

see the gospel of Michael Moore, then come back and tell me that republicans are the ones using a tragedy to spread lies.

Re:This is indeed an act of war.

[llansamlet]

I'd love to see how the US would recruit many suicide bombers. Yes, it's not civilized. Is far more civilized to develop the hardware and drop bombs on people from 1000s of feet up in the air, so it's all like a computer game and nobody has to get upset.

Re:What will the EU do?

[ajs318]

The USA blew up the World trade Centre by pissing off one person too many.

If you insult someone, and they retaliate, it's your fault. If you insult someone, they retaliate and an innocent third party suffers, it's {at least partly} your fault that that third party suffered -- because they would not have, if you had not made the original insult in the first place.

It's all about oil, or money. There isn't a lot of difference. The Arabs have oil and want money for it. The USA begrudges the amount it is paying for oil, and adds insult to injury by insisting to pay for it in US dollars -- so the Arabs have to change US dollars for local currency, at whatever exchange rate the USA chooses. The USA and UK also sell weapons to anybody who wants them.

The USA has been throwing its weight around, and the UK has been its pathetic little lap-dog, for too long. We should get our arses in gear and move ahead right now with trying to go oil-free. We're going to have to do that eventually anyway, one day -- and things are only going to get bloodier and messier for countries that insist to use oil right up to the end. So why not save ourselves the bother right now? Stop using oil, leave the Arabs alone, stay out of their messy business. And while we're at it, let's take the radical step of outlawing theism. I don't imagine for a minute that it will stop terrorists altogether, but at least they will have to be honest about their motives.

As usual

[huge colin]

Here's yet another problem that wouldn't exist without religion.

Don't reply to tell me that "oh, most religious people don't go around blowing things up." I know that and I don't care. When was the last time you heard of a group of radical atheists throwing a hand grenade into a tour bus?

Re:As usual

[Becquerel]

I have to agree entirely with your sentiment, indeed i made an almost identical post a few months ago.

However, it doesn't stop my sneaking fealing that a large tranche of the population need someone to lead there thoughts on a weekly (or daily) basis in order to stop them having to think about it themselves. And subsequently coming up with alsorts of answers as to what is the right way to behave.

It further becomes apparent that i am not the first to think this...:)....and that for thousands of years civilisations have been creating systems so that the masses can be taught collectively to act in a certain way. These religions in order to be convinsing to the masses need to draw on the power of a supreme being to keep people inline. (I don't think saying "I'm cleverer than you, so all do what i say" is going to hack it). The downside being that if you create a monster story some people are going to take at as (say) gospel ;) and get carried away, by detail and twisting the origional message to suit there own ends.

What i would dearly like to invent would be an athiest religion, but sadly i think the fundamental problems would be 1) a lack of 'fear of god' to get people to follow it and 2) a lack of any kind of improved hope that things will be any better in the future (or afterdeath) if they do follow it.

Until such a system is inplace i'm afraid the religious memes will run rampant in the mind of the masses, with inevitable casualties.

Re:As usual

[hacksoncode]

Let's see... that would be... the Russian and Chinese Revolutions.

Yes, it was a long time ago, and they had other reasons for it too, but they did manage to kill more people that any of the religious factions ever have in history.

Mind you, I'm in agreement with the basic sentiment, but I think you need to modify it somewhat: this is yet another problem that wouldn't exist without *fanatisicm".

Re:As usual

[evilmonkey_666]

Yes there have been bad atheists.

But they were not acting 'in the name of atheism'. These religious fanatics are doing what they are doing *because* of religion.

Re:As usual

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

As Lewis Black says: If someone's too lazy to have faith in something, they're way too lazy to go out and strap a bomb to themselves.

Re:As usual

[KD5YPT]

Um... they were acting with the thinking that religions are bad. So they're technically acting "for the purpose to end religion".

Re:As usual

[huge colin]

Never heard of Bolsheviks? Never heard of the Jacobins? Never heard of the turn-of-the-century anarchists?

Crack open a history book Mr. Self Righteous Athiest.

Firstly, neither the word 'atheism' nor 'religion' appears anywhere in the Wikipedia articles for the Bolsheviks or Jacobins. This is not surprising, because these were political organizations. Even if their support of an atheist state wasn't peripheral to their cause, the deaths they were responsible for were motivated by politics and power, not because of their personal passion for atheism.

Secondly, you can call me "self-righteous" all you like, but the fact remains that I can demonstrate why my science- and logic-derived beliefs are correct while the nonsense- and ignorance-fueled beliefs of religious fanatics are wrong.

Re:As usual

[huge colin]

Quiet please, and listen. Notice that when today's modern terrorist strikes a target, there is always a letter or video to accompany it with statements along the line of, "Praise be to Allah for the swiftness with which we deliver this raid!" No one has ever blown up a building and said "This is what you get for holding faith-based, non-scientific belief!"

Re:As usual

[Danny Rathjens]

"With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -- Dr. Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate, Physics

Re:As usual

[meringuoid]

When was the last time you heard of a group of radical atheists throwing a hand grenade into a tour bus?

I'm pretty sure that the European Marxist terror groups of the sixties and seventies got up to some rather nasty things. I'm thinking the Baader-Meinhof gang, the Red Army Faction, that lot.

Re:As usual

[huge colin]

Wow, thanks! I'm a fan of Weinberg and the work he's done to popularize physics, but I hadn't come across that quote before.

I can hope that this long sad story, this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas, will come to an end. I hope this is something to which science can contribute ... it may be the most important contribution that we can make.
-- Steven Weinberg, Freethought Today, April, 2000

Re:As usual

[huge colin]

I'm pretty sure that the European Marxist terror groups of the sixties and seventies got up to some rather nasty things. I'm thinking the Baader-Meinhof gang, the Red Army Faction, that lot.

'Marxism' describes a political philosophy, not a religious one. As I said in a parallel thread, certain political groups may endorse atheism officially, but atheism itself is not their motivation for killings and terrorism.

Re:As usual

[Visigoth21]

In that communists theology replaces god with the state any of last centuries Communist uprisings are an example of an atheist group throwing bombs.

Re:As usual

[huge colin]

This concept has already been addressed in other child posts, for example here.

Re:As usual

[Visigoth21]

so let me see any idea that doesn't fit into your world view is childish, and adult reaction

Re:As usual

[mr100percent]

What about the Salonica dynamiters who threw dynamite into coffee shops and the like? They were atheist, but focused more on being revolutionaries. They even let the Cops kill them, does that make them suicide attackers?

Nationalism can often take the place of religious fervor. Think of how many nationalist terrorist groups there are. People die for their country, and consider it martyrdom the same way a person dies for their religion.

Re:As usual

[huge colin]

so let me see any idea that doesn't fit into your world view is childish, and adult reaction

I'm not sure what you mean by "world view", but what I choose to "believe" is irrelevant. Science, and science alone, is the method by which we will discover things. If anyone wants to make an extraordinary claim, they had better be prepared to present some extraordinary evidence to support it.

Re:As usual

[corblix]

When was the last time you heard of a group of radical atheists throwing a hand grenade into a tour bus?

That would be the most recent communist insurgency/revolution. Read the news from Nepal some time.

Re:As usual

[huge colin]

As I apparently should have said in my original post: those revolutionaries are killing because of their political philosophy, not their religious philosophy. Their actions were not "in the name of atheism", so to speak.

Re:As usual

[Jus'n]

When was the last time you heard of a group of radical atheists throwing a hand grenade into a tour bus?

If a totalitarian theocracy took over the United States, you would. I personally don't think religion is the cause of any of the terrible acts committed by religious extremists, but rather that religion is a convenient excuse. I think an extremist faction is probably attractive to an angry, disaffected person in much the same way that street gangs are here in the US. Does it really matter who they kill for?

That having been said, the brits have my deepest condolences and sympathies, both for the lives lost and troubles faced, as well as those yet to come in the aftermath.

Re:As usual

[Jus'n]

My apologies if I'm wrong, but I believe when "huge colin (528073)" said 'child posts' he meant subsequent posts, not immature posts. You know, as opposed to "parent".

Re:As usual

[gibodean]

It's much lazier to be religious, same as your friends and family, than it is to be atheist, and have to live with religion all around you.

You, sir, are wrong and stupid (and illogical, if you are religious as you sound).

Re:As usual

[MyLongNickName]

Quit splitting hairs. You could argue that al quaida is blowing things up due to political, not religious reasons.

The biggest mass murderers in history were atheists... research the Bolshevik revolution and the Maoist "cultural revolution".

Re:As usual

[thefinite]

Just because atheism isn't their reason doesn't prevent them from finding other reasons. The point of the grandparent is that bad people don't need to use religion to excuse their behavior.

Besides, atheism hasn't inspired any great acts of kindness, either. When was the last time someone engaged in a huge, humanitarian effort in the "name" of atheism? (Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of atheists that do incredible things for humanity, but not by virtue of their atheism. It is usually by virtue of some other fundamental belief they hold.)

Re:As usual

[huge colin]

The biggest mass murderers in history were atheists.

Doubt it. It's much more likely that they supported an officially atheist state just as part of the plan for opression, but I really, really doubt that any of them arrived at the conclusion that no god exists through rational thought and scientific observation. The people you speak of were politicians and rebels, not scientists.

Re:As usual

[huge colin]

Jus'n is correct.

Re:As usual

[MyLongNickName]

Choose to believe what you choose to believe. But basically, you have defined the measurements to your liking so tightly that your theory cannot be disproven. This would be called 'blind faith', the very thing you make fun of.

However, I am sure you will come up with a rationalization to justify it...

Re:As usual

[0xC2]

"Religion" is the ritual of worshipping your Master. And as Bob Dylan wrote, "You Gotta Serve Somebody". How many dead for the sake of the "religions" of Nationality, Self-Serving, Capitalism, Politics. Violent means to preserve your Master is not unique to Religious Fanatics.

Re:As usual

[huge colin]

Technically, that's correct. I can't prove that the world would be a better place if religion never existed. It's too complex a question for the answer to be obvious. (This also means that no one else can prove that the world would be worse off if religion never existed.)

Fortunately, the answer to the question "Is religious faith technically accurate?" is clear, and I see no legitimate reason to believe in something that logic and reason can show is nonsense.

Re:As usual

[huge colin]

How many dead for the sake of the "religions" of Nationality, Self-Serving, Capitalism, Politics.

Those are all very different things from religion. Capitalism is just a productive economic system. Nationalism is just a simple by-product of having different nations with different ideals. People being self-serving is just a natural part of human brains which helps to drive the process of evolution. All of this is fairly benign and simply part of having a working society.

But religion is a set of claims, both specific and non-specific, about the physical world. Not only does it often drive people to do bad things, but its components can be shown to be false. That's the problem.

Re:As usual

[Visigoth21]

Yes I do seem to have jumped the gun on that

Re:Respond with more force

[alcmaeon]

Bomb THEM? THEM who?

If you knew who THEM was, you could arrest THEM ahead of time.

Other Attacks

[Kyukyukyu]

Well due to the discovery of "explosives" outside of the capital, makes me wonder if there could still be more out there.

A controlled explosion was carried out in Brighton, and there are unconfirmed reports in Coventry in Swansea.

I personally live in Plymouth, home of the UK's Naval Might (Arguably) - so we'd be quite a target if this was designed to stop possible response to future mass carnage.

As someone said however, it looks as if this was designed to cause maximum chaos - which can be just as devastating as carnage. It can lower moral, and in a state of confusion - some people perform drastic actions without realizing the consequences.

Makes me wonder whether this will be the first of many, I hope not. :)

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[soft_guy]

The war on terror is history repeating itself. It is just like the war on High Prices in which Wal-Mart has been engaged for many years.

Re:I Upset the racist club ...

[Mr. Ghost]

Besides the name of the country is the United States of America America is in our name so we can logically be called Americans. The name of your country is Canada not Canada of America or anything else.

Also I am allowed to call myself anything I want. If my name is John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt and I want to call myself Fred then that is perfectly ok.

You seem to have a major inferiority complex, I feel really sorry for you that you have to somehow attempt to feel better about yourself by trying to proclaim yourself as a "Real American" in the mold of Bill Cunningham.

Re:What will the EU do?

[MynockGuano]

I'm going to reply to this one, since it was the only one of the three so far to make some rational sense.

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.

Re:What will the EU do?

[IngramJames]

I'm sorry, I missed that passage in my Bible where it tells me to "slaughter Muslims". Could you kindly point me to it?

Given that Mohammed lived hundreds of years after Christ, you'll have a difficult time finding that one; as I suspect you know.

But (some) evangelical Christians believe that Christ cannot return for the second coming until all Jews return to Israel; which is, therefore a state created by the will of God. Which is, therefore, perfect, and can do no wrong. I have had one such Christian explain to me (with a straight face) that Israeli soldiers have never, ever killed (or even shot at) an innocent (or even unarmed, stone-throwing) civilian on purpose, that the Palastinian houses are only ever knocked down if they are booby trapped by terrorists, and that the Israeli soldiers then build new houses out of their own pockets.

Hence: Christian fundamentalism = support of Israeli no matter what = more attrocities committed against Palastinian civilians = more Palastinian terrorists = more attrocitices committed against Israeli civilians. Repeat.

I can tell you that Mohammed explicitly stated that Jews, Christians and Muslims were all "people of the same book", and that Jerusalem was a pretty nice (and very tolerant) place to live until several thousand heavily armed European Crusaders hoved into view and started eating babies

Re:Probably not the IRA

[Beatlebum]

Yes, they realised that killing members of the public was a PR mistake, so they started to hit economic targets such as the City of London. The Baltic Exchange bomb caused around one billion UKP worth of damage. Some would argue that the economic bombing campaign was the catalyst for the Good Friday Agreement. Unfortunately Governments care far more about money than people, and yes I know that's a cynical statement, but it's based on living in England during the IRA's campaign of the 70's and 80's and visiting family in the war-torn parts of Belfast during the same period.

A few others have mentioned that splinter groups of the IRA would not engage is bombing soft targets. These splinter groups are the 'Real' IRA and the Continuity IRA, and I wouldn't be so sure that they won't start bombing, especially given the continued non-implementation of the Good riday Agreement.

unconfirmed deaths

[frankie]

Yeah, it's like the Loma Prieta earthquake in California. I remember the TV showing live helicopter cam of a collapsed double-decker highway (aka dozens/hundreds of squashed cars) and Peter Jennings is doing a voiceover that there are "no confirmed casualties". It's a worse-than-useless phrase.

Thought verses Reaction

[Fantastic Lad]

I'd say the one who responded to a barbaric terrorist attack with lunatic conspiracy theories is the unthinking one.

Consider: you are suggesting that attempting to form a theory is an inappropriate response to a barbaric attack, and that a knee-jerk emotionally based response IS appropriate.

Seriously. You don't know who planted the bombs and you would rather cry, 'Lunatic', than ask questions. Please be careful! --Because the next step is to jump to conclusions, find the most visible target and pull a trigger. Is this the action of a rational, thinking person who is not easily manipulated?

Why is my theory a, 'lunatic' theory? Please explain, if you can.

-FL

Re:Propaganda

[That's Unpossible!]

Propaganda, and true modivation are seldom the same...

And what motivates someone has no direct relationship with what someone's goals are.

It may have been that non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia inspired bin Laden, but his stated goal is to destroy non-Muslims and bring an Islamic state to the world, and that is the same thing other islamofascists preach.

What would be the propaganda value in telling another group there is nothing they can do to stop the war, because they are going to continue to try and kill us wherever we are?

That is illogical.

It would be propaganda if islamofascists said, "If you just leave all the 'Muslim countries,' we will stop trying to kill you," with the desired aim of having us leave, MEANWHILE they have no intentions of stopping their war against the infidels.

Your claims are also not tied to reality, in that I have read countless times that these islamofascists claim everything they do is backed by the Qur'an. These people get pissed off if a non-muslim TOUCHES this book. Do you really think they are lying about what they feel it contains? (That God has blessed them to kill infidels and if they martyr they'll get 70 virgins in heaven.)

No, it is not propaganda, these islamofascists actually are insane.

BTW, if anyone reading this is an islamofascist, I just have to point out: IF YOUR GOD IS TELLING YOU ITS OK TO KILL PEOPLE, YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY BE LISTENING TO THE WRONG GOD. Just a thought.

(This comes from a non-religious, politically central person.)

Re:What will the EU do?

[majick275]

The more desparate you make the people in Iraq, the more recruits are easily available for terrorist groups. But that's not a 'good' action from anybody's viewpoint, and even that will not be enough to stop all potential terrorists. To those "pollyannas" who think that appeasement/understanding/winning hearts and minds is a viable strategy: How did that work out for Neville Chamberlain? Would you recommend that as a better way to have dealt with Hitler? For all of you naive bleeding heart liberals: Why do you choose to side with such intolerant, racist, genocidal bigots? Wahabists believe in the death (or in some cases subjugation) of ALL infidels. (those who disagree with their beliefs). I find it disgusting that Militant Wahabist terrorist blow up inocent civilians indiscriminately in London and the first thing out of "social crusaders" mouths are to blame it on the USA/George Bush. Do you pathetic fools really believe that this the just desserts of not abandoning Israel to a genocidal pogrom? We should take our money and give it to people who hate us merely because we don't share their religious beliefs? You represent the same ridiculous left wing extremists who keep empowering the mid east dictators, raising energy costs (and thus most other costs) by preventing oil drilling in Alaska, new refineries and power plants in the US and now even "eco-friendly" energy production such as windmills,OTEC, tidal generators, etc. because it scares the birds,fish,caribou...whatever. You are able to freely post this drivel only because dangerous people have killed (in many wars) those who threaten your freedom. (real freedom, not the liberal civil rights crusader to enable you to do/say anything you believe in while eliminating the ability of anyone else to act in any way that you disagree with.) Hail Brittania! I support you. London Olympics? WELL DESERVED!

Re:No, you're wrong. You're very, very wrong.

[eheldreth]

As opposed to those who murder real live baby humans?

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[colinrichardday]

Oh yeah, that liberal Roosevelt, what an appeaser! The way he just wanted to talk to the Japanese after Pearl Harbor!

And that conservative Chamberlain! No Adolf, you put one soldier in Czechoslovakia, and we waste your butt!

Wait, is someone saying it didn't happen that way? :-)

Read the Koran

[Odd John]

To understand why some Muslims kill their neighbors you have only to read the Koran. You don't need to blame politicians and secret conspiracies. Find the Koran online and search for the words 'unbeliever' and 'punish' and 'kill'. Read the Koran's instructions on how faithful Muslims should treat non-Mulsims. In a few examples out of many:

Koran - Time [76.4] Surely We have prepared for the unbelievers chains and shackles and a burning fire.

Koran - The Immunity [9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush

Koran - The Victory [48.6] And (that) He may punish the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women, and the polytheistic men and the polytheistic women, the entertainers of evil thoughts about Allah. On them is the evil turn, and Allah is wroth with them and has cursed them and prepared hell for them, and evil is the resort.

Fundamentalist Mullahs and Imams use this dogma to teach the gullible that jihad, killing infidels, is the only sure way into Paradise.

Re:Read the Koran

[Verminator]

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.

Re:Read the Koran

[genrader]

If oyu actually understood the Bible you might realize that the new testament completely revamped that which was done in the old testament. The Koran has none of that.

Re:Read the Koran

[stinerman]

Traditional Muslim teaching is that all peoples "of the book" (Jews and Christians) are given a protected status since they believe in the same god. IIRC, those people are guaranteed civil rights and other such protections in a Muslim state. I cannot recall the whole status as it has been a few years since my Middle East gen ed.

Re:Read the Koran

[pe1chl]

Of course, there's nothing hateful like that in the King James Bible.

The difference is in the age of the religion. Christians have been just as bad, at least the most fanatic ones, but over time they have learned that such behaviour is not being tolerated by less-religious people, and that such passages have to be tuned out.

Muslims still need to go through that phase. They need to learn that religion is something that they choose to follow themselves, and that they are not in the position to condemn and/or harm others that do not believe what they believe.
Of course not all muslims are like that, but it was the same with christians. Some rotten apples spoil it for everyone.

As soon as they have grown up enough to understand this, they can believe and worship what they like, and not bother to have an express opinion against others who do not believe in Allah or God or whatever.

In the meantime, it is insane to talk about a "war against terrorism". War causes terrorism.

Re:Read the Koran

[Anonymous Coward]

They are given protected ("dhimmi") status as long as they pay a special poll tax ("jiyza") and are willing to live the rest of their lives in a second-class status of constant humiliation and degradation. What about people not "of the book", like pagans and polytheists? They are to be either slaughtered or enslaved. Glad there are not too many of those left (*cough* Hindus, *cough* animists).

Re:Read the Koran

[sesshomaru]

KJV - Ephesians [5:5] For this ye know, that no whoremonger... hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Well, now that is bad news for me!

Re:Read the Koran

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if that is "Traditional Muslim teaching", then it certainly isn't what is currently practised today. In Muslim countries today, public practise of religions other than Islam ranges from being fined to subject to arrest. In Saudi Arabia, attempting to convert a Muslim away from Islam gets you the death penalty.

Your mistake is confusing what people say, with what actually happens in reality.

Re:Read the Koran

[mr100percent]

Your verses are mistranslated.

Surah 76 is Al Insaan, which means The Human, not "Time." 76:4 "We prepared for the disbelievers chains, shackles, and a blazing Hell." People who refuse to believe in God will be sent to Hell. How does this explain "why some Muslims kill their neighbors" as you put it? Besides, what does Christianity say about not believing in God?

Surah 9 is Bara'ah, which means Ultimatum, not "Immunity." You also cut off the rest of the verse.

9:5 reads as "Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. God is Forgiver, Most Merciful."

The context of this was when the idol-worshipping Meccans kept breaking the peace treaty. (Read A HREF="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155111&c id=13006719">yasbug's post above mine)

Surah 48 is the Victory. If you read the verse before what you quoted, it is referring to Judgement Day,

48:5 "That He may admit the men and women who believe, to Gardens beneath which rivers flow [in Paradise}, to dwell therein for aye, and remove their ills from them;- and that is, in the sight of God, the highest achievement (for man),-"

and 48:6 "And that He may punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the Polytheists men and women, who imagine an evil opinion of God. On them is a round of Evil: the Wrath of God is on them: He has cursed them and got Hell ready for them: and evil is it for a destination."

See? You pulled out a verse talking about how some people will be punished in Hell. You removed all the context where it's referring to the Hereafter and not this life. How does this prove your point, anyway?

"Fundamentalist Mullahs and Imams use this dogma to teach the gullible that jihad, killing infidels, is the only sure way into Paradise."

Arab World Condemns London Blasts. That seems to be the opposite of what you're claiming.

Re:Read the Koran

[mr100percent]

Ah yes, the "Islam is behind the times" idea again.

How can you judge that Muslims are in that phase? Have you seen the arguments among Muslim leaders in Iraq over secularism versus theocracy? Do you watch the Crossfire-style debates and roundtable discussions on Al Jazeerah? Have you asked the Canadian Muslim community on what the different opinions are on the topic of Islamic law? Is the American Muslim community harming others who don't practice their religion? Did you see how a Muslim country like Turkey has imposed its restrictions on religion? I think you're following the stereotype, but there's really no widespread example I can think of in reality today.

What makes you think Muslims aren't in that phase or past it? What do you think the alcohol-drinking Muslims say about people trying to stop them? Islam is against forcing people, because that wouldn't be sincere. Everyone knows you can't force people to follow, which is why Muslims in America condemn the Saudi government for trying to force attendance in mosques or whatever.

Re:Read the Koran

[dancingmad]

I don't argue with ACs, generally but:

dhimmi status just meant they would be protected and they had to pay a tax. The so called poll-tax was just a tax: it was the equivalent of the zakat that Muslims paid for the state. In turn, they were protected from outsiders...I believe it was the Byzantine Christains who greatly preferred their Muslims rulers to the unjust Christain ones they had before.

As for living humiliated and degreded, in Palestine, some of the most ardent Palestinians are Arab Christains, who oppose Israeli occupation arm in arm with their Muslim neighbors.

In Iraq, Muslims have been keeping up and protecting Jewish holy sites, which Jews were chased away from by Sadaam.

Bangladesh, while not completely free from communal violence, is home to a great many Hindus, Christains, Buddhists, and animists. While the situation is far from perfect (and nowhere is it perfect, not even in your US of A, where Sikhs get killed for 9/11).

Furthermore, under some Mogul rulers in India dhimmi status was afforded to Hindus as well. Akbar actually encouraged Hindus, Buddhists, as well as Muslims in his court.

In short, despite throwing some half learned Arabic around, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Read the Koran

[Abu Taleb]

Dhimmi tax was for protection FROM the Muslims - not from outsiders. Good but lousy try to rewrite history - what a loser. Zakat is only a 2.5% tax. Dhimmi tax was way higher - again, you fail miserably in your apology for religious fascism and Islam. Apostates and blasphemers are met with DEATH in ALL Islamic countries. Now this is something you will find hard to argue against with more apologies. Mohammad was a pedophile and he f**ked Ayesha, an 8 year old child. Go and be ashamed of your imbecile religion and ideology that truck bombs childrens in the marketplaces of Iraq. You don't know much about Islam I see. And I know cause I am a Muslim.

Re:Read the Koran

[pe1chl]

Ah yes, the "Islam is behind the times" idea again.

It is not "behind the times", it is immature.
Know your history. Christians have done the same thing some centuries ago.

With maturity, the insight comes that a religion is just something you share with a group of fellows, not something you should impose on others. And that you should not, even when that is written in your sacred book, condemn or hurt non-believers in your religion, either physically or emotionally.

Islam has not yet gone into that phase. Don't tell me that there are many who do not harm other people; of course there are. But there is a defined movement in Islam that preaches the status and fate of non-believers in a very expressed way. Not in some terrorist movement, but imams in their official mosques. This is the cause of a lot of hate, and they should grow up and end that. From the inside.

Re:Read the Koran

[mr100percent]

Where do you hear mainstream Muslims try to "impose" their religion on others? And when do they condone hurting non-believers? And No, the Qur'an does NOT state to do that. No, it doesn't.

Islam doesn't have to go into the phases that Christianity did, because Islam doesn't have the same problems that Christianity has. Qur'anic literalism is completely different from biblical literalism, for starters.

"there is a defined movement in Islam that preaches the status and fate of non-believers in a very expressed way. Not in some terrorist movement, but imams in their official mosques."

Yes, Islam generally has a stance on non-believers. They're human beings. Wrong and sinful people, but murder can be a hell-worthy sin. It's haram (forbidden) to force them to convert. Also, there is a quotation from the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, saying that "Whoever murders a [non-Muslim citizen] will not even smell the fragrance of Paradise." let alone get into it. Please show me where Christianity gives such human rights. Like I said, Islam has different issues than Christianity, so it's foolish to compare them in the same manner.

You're not going to find imams in official mosques condoning terrorism. Every government out there cracked down years ago.

Priorities.

[Grendel Drago]

According to costofwar.com, the Iraq war has cost, so far, about $180 billion. That's a lot of money. For a comparison, the Manhattan Project cost $20 billion in modern dollars.

$180 billion buys a lot of research and infrastructure to get us off of foreign oil. To introduce efficiencies, reduce consumption and research better methods of generation. Which would do a hell of a lot more to reduce terrorism (by slowing if not stopping the flow of money to the Saudis who fund a lot of these groups) than what has turned out to be an expensively optional war. It's possible that Iraq will end up better than it was under Saddam---I certainly hope it does---but the money could have been better spent elsewhere.

--grendel drago

Re:Priorities.

[feepness]

$180 billion buys a lot of research and infrastructure to get us off of foreign oil. To introduce efficiencies, reduce consumption and research better methods of generation. Which would do a hell of a lot more to reduce terrorism (by slowing if not stopping the flow of money to the Saudis who fund a lot of these groups) than what has turned out to be an expensively optional war. It's possible that Iraq will end up better than it was under Saddam---I certainly hope it does---but the money could have been better spent elsewhere.

This bears repeating.

I don't care whether you think the war was justified or not.

I don't care why you think Al-Queda wants to blow us up.

I don't care if you think that George Bush is a monkey or that Bill Clinton is whatever an is is.

If we just stop feeding the beast it will go away. When they have to start being more interested in managing their dwindling money supply than how to spend the spigot of cash we keep sending them they will go away. When we don't need to station troops in Middle Eastern sandpits because of oil (right or wrong), they will go away.

We need to focus on alternatives, and not just because oil is a non-renewable resource.

Re:Priorities.

[rsynnott]

It would also buy _18_ ITER fusion plants! :)

Re:What will the EU do?

[MynockGuano]

The heart of my argument is that the central guiding principle of the US/UK's foreign policy is "ensure the prosperity of our people" and NOT "screw the world just because we can."

It seems that people seem to forget that, at times. I would not say that the child is at fault, but instead the government that does not provide for its people. These are the most resource-rich countries on our planet; surely they can do better for their citizens. I can't imagine what foreign policy must be in place that allows such terrible imbalances to propagate unchecked.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[legLess]

Oh for Christ's sake, you can't compare WWII with the current situation. WWII was a conflict between countries. Each country could end the conflict at any time by having a small group of people agree to surrender. There were armies, navies, military targets, and for the most part clear lines between civilians and military folk. None of that is true of the "war on terror."

We've already invaded two countries to "stop terrorism," and where has it gotten us? Nowhere good. The world is more dangerous now than it was four years ago. Who else should we invade? What infrastructure can we destroy that will cripple the forces against us? It's a completely bogus comparison.

Message from a Muslim in London

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do not link this dreadful attack with Islam or it's followers. We are as shocked by this attack as much as everyone, and whilst there will no doubt be some who take pleasure in it, most of us are horrified by it. At every location there will, almost certainly, have been Muslims who are injured or worse, Edware Road and Aldgate East have large Muslim populations for a start. We, like everyone else, have been trying to contact friends and family, Muslim and non-Muslim who may have been affected.

If this is the work of misguided Muslims, then they have committed a major sin by the killing of innocent people, and have sullied our beutiful religion.

Other than those directly affected by these attacks, it will be the Muslims in the UK who suffer the most. And once again, we will need to prove that our religion is not one of barbarity and bloodshed, as it is often portrayed. No doubt there will be innocent Muslims who are verbally or physically assaulted because of this event. So we are not pleased by this event one bit, and we condemn those who planned and carried this out.

Please know that for every so called Muslim scholar who may appear on t.v. proclaiming there support for this attack as valid retribution for the slaughter of Muslims, there will be many many more who are not given the opportunity to condemn this. If you really want to see the Muslim reaction to this, then visit sites such as http://www.deenport.com/ or http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/.

We pray for all those affected by this terrible event, and we hope that all those responsible for it are brought to justice.

Re:Message from a Muslim in London

[rsynnott]

Fundamentalist christians, of course, NEVER condone violence

Re:Message from a Muslim in London

[rsynnott]

Hmm, apparently god also hates lack of wwws. Working link to crazy murder-advocating fundamentalists

Re:Message from a Muslim in London

[lbmouse]

If you are Muslim, Please explain the following lines from a translation of the Qur'an:

"If the future abode with Allah is specially for you to the exclusion of the people, then invoke death if you are truthful."

"If then they believe as you believe in Him, they are indeed on the right course, and if they turn back, then they are only in great opposition, so Allah will suffice you against them, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing."

Re:EAT UP ALL THAT ELITE PROPAGANDA, BOYS!

[interiot]

I'll bite.

People stared at the Michael Jackon for weeks, and 100 people in England dropped dead of a sudden heart attack yesterday.

People stared at the Pope's funeral and subsequent papal election, for a long long time. And 100 people in England dropped dead of a sudden heart attack yesterday.

The popularity of news stories has very little to do with 1) the number of deaths, or 2) the extent to which The Man wants to subjugate us.

True Lies

[Ranger]

After hearing statements coming out of the G8 summit, I am reminded of a scene in Babylon 5 episode Acts of Sacrifice:

Sheridan: G'Kar, everyone in this room knows too well that the first casualty of war is always the truth.

Franklin: Unfortunately, the rest tend to be too small or too weak to defend themselves.

--
The events in London were terrible. Those who committed those horrific acts they believe they are fighting a just war. And to them anyone is a legitimate target; no one is innocent. To them it is total war. We are caught between idiots and madmen. Our leaders say, the terrorists won't win, but how many will die before they lose? Is George Orwell's vision of perpetual war, becoming a reality? I hope not.

I watched the PBS special "In Search of Ancient Ireland." They talked about dark ages that coincided with the dark ages in classical Greece, 12th century BC. Not the more well known one in the 6th century AD. One scholar pointed out that in times of stress, people become more warlike and more religious. I was stunned to see that is the parallel with today's events.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[colinrichardday]

Except that Wal-Mart seems to be winning . . .

start learning history...

[YesIAmAScript]

The US was involved in the very incident that began the modern Islamic revolution. That was when an Iranian revolution removed the Shah from power. We (the US) decided we liked the Shah's mode of operation, so we helped reinstall him in power in Iran. Islamic fundamentalists banded together and removed him from power again and took US hostages in the American Embassy in Tehran. Perhaps you remember that? They formed an Islamist republic after the removal the 2nd time of the Shah. Thus start the transition in the Middle East from dictatorial/monarchist countries to Islamic republics (not really republics at all, but run by the Mullahs).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution

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.

Re:Stick to what you know boys and girls

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it from your comments that you found a moment to post this while taking cover from withering Kalashnikov fire aimed at you and your elite team of Spec Ops commandos by some towelhead fanatic screaming the name of Allah while his sinister conspirators advance their plot to behead our leaders with scimitars and rape our womenfolk with their revolting brown-skinned penises. That would explain why our "anti war rhetoric" threatens you so much. It would put you right out of a job, wouldn't it? You might have to earn a living in some fashion that didn't give you the chance to kill people... uh, solely in obedience to your duly authorized commanders, of course. The idea that anyone would volunteer for the armed forces because they it's a socially endorsed outlet for their bloodlust is just... I don't know... creepy.

But you're right about one thing: I have no combat experience whatsoever. (Never even took a bunch of fives in a dustup at the boozer.) So I'll have to leave it to you to explain the fine points of martial discipline and the warrior's code required to take a squad of your armed-to-the-teeth buddies, kick in the door of some Arab farmer's shack at midnight, scream unintelligble commands for the hysterical grandmothers and children inside to get face down on the floor, and drag some bewildered and unprotesting man who vaguely fits the description of someone you were assigned to look for [they all look alike, anyway] off to one of our expanding fleet of military prisons for an invigorating round of torture. [In any way short of organ failure, of course - we're proud white people, not one of these swarthy barbarians.]

Or here's an idea: defend your own borders rather than rolling your tanks over someone else's. It might chill those high-strung Middle Eastern types right the fuck out.

Re:Fucking Animals

[william_w_bush]

Let this be a lesson for Londoners and the rest of the world that Americans can somehow use any horrible tragedy to steal the mic at the funeral and pitch whatever stupid foreign policy they want for alterior motives, while still playing up the other, more important tragedy that happened 4 years ago that they still haven't learned to deal with.

I am a citizen of the U.S. of A, our mascot is the drama queen.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[elgatozorbas]

Do you have any idea how many jokes were made after 911 we Americans had to endure?

While this may be true, I hardly see why this is a reason to find these bombings 'funny'. "They laughed at us, now we laugh at you"?!?

People got killed there. People had their arms torn of by the blast. It _IS_ not funny, no more than the attack on the WTC was or no more than people starving in Africa are. Jokes are made about all of these, but imho pretending it is 'funny' at a time when people are still fighting for their lives is an indication of poor taste. See the television news of the paramedics rushing victims to the hospital and have a good laugh. It's "you turn" now. Hope you feel better.

Re:Propaganda

[TamMan2000]

There are insane islamofacists that do believe this.

I don't believe Bin Laden is one of them. If he was, how could he have worked with the CIA in the russian war in afghanistan?

I also think that any of us who claim to know what motivates Bin Laden is a little too confidant. All I meant to say with my post is that we don't know that what he says is true, and to accept it cart blanche is foolish as best, and dangerous at worst.

I also beleive that Al Queda can not function without at least some support from broad Muslum communities, this support is rarly based on hatred of everthing western, but rather a desire to have western nations change thier foreign policy. If this support evaporates, then the movment looses it's ability to oporate...

(I too am non-religous, and I used to consider myself a centerest, but I feel the center has shifted very far to the right lately)

Pop culture take on American IRA 'sympathy'

[Matarick]

As what Bono said before Sunday Bloody Sunday before concerts, "Fuck the Revolution." Taken from A Shot in the dark

During the bridge, Bono hushes the band down to just the drums and the bass, while the Edge slowly figures and listens.

I'm sick of Irish Americans, who haven't been home in twenty or thirty years, come up to me and tell me about the glory of the revolution. The glory of dying for the revolution. Fuck the revolution. Where's the glory in dragging a man from his bed and gunning him down in front of his wife and children? Where's the glory in that? Where's the glory in bombing old age pensioners as part of a remembrance day parade, their medals polished up for the day? Where's the glory in that?

Where is in the glory of attacking commuters?

The definition of fanaticism...

[composer777]

is if you find yourself going in the wrong direction, you double your speed. The war in Iraq has gotten us these results so far, and instead of pulling back, we double our speed, just brilliant. The obvious solution is to pull our troops out, but I doubt fanatics like you would ever figure that one out.

It reminds me of the drug war, which has made very little real progress, other than locking some people up, but if you ever ask a DEA agent, they'll tell you the lack of progress is a sign that we need to dedicate even MORE resources to the effort, not that it's a failed policy.

Re:The definition of fanaticism...

[sumdumass]

If you look at the war on drugs, you will see it wasn't as much about stoping americans form doing srugs as it was getting fuunds and approvals to do operations in south america. IT was the war on drugs that let us interact with the columbians drug loards and such.

The war on drugs was very effective in what it needed to do. It gathered support for somethign while making you look the other direction. It did this by distracting us. Sure some of the actions were blunders but then again a mojority weren't.

On another note, how can i push my agenda in a certain area in todays times? oh yea, i could use the 9/11 action to mask it and make most people feels good about supporting it. The problem is that Alot of people actualy wanted the aggenda to happen before it was masqed b ehind a war on terror. I'm happy to see iraq uunder new leadership. I'm also happy to see women in afghanastan going to schools and voting. I'm sure it is all part of a bigger agenda but then again, it has done some positive things for quite a few more people then are negetivly impacted.

Re:Only 7 bombs?

[Atzanteol]

Mmmm. I love AC responses to my posts...

Definitions...

[ThinWhiteDuke]

Words have a meaning, you know? Everybody agrees that Hussein was a bad guy. He was a bloodthirsty dictator but not a terrorist. He did not blow up airliners or subway stations for instance. He's still an evil man, but not a terrorist.

There are (sadly) a lot of evil dictators in the world. North Korea, Sudan, Myanmar and others come to mind. These guys are generally not terrorists because they're usually more interested in maintaining their own power and completing their little genocide than pissing off western countries and risking to lose everything.

An interesting exception is Col. Gaddafi, dictator of Libya. This guy has been convicted of conducting terror attacks by several western courts. He's been proven responsible of blowing up at least 2 airliners in the eighties. He was the archetypal bad guy back then, the Saddam of his time. In "Back to the future" for instance the villains are Libyans.

Gaddafi is a terrorist. He's still the dictator of Libya. Yet all western (including US) sanctions against Libya were lifted 2 years ago when Gaddafi dropped his WMD programs. Talk about a war on terror...

Just in case you were wondering why the US (and the West) would clear a known terrorist, Libya has HUGE oil reserves...

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[Drasil]

I agree completely and would like Mr. Bush to leave ASAP.

Re:Stick to what you know boys and girls

[DrSoCold]

Brilliant!

Racism, Prejudice and utter bollocks all in one post!

Looks like you need a new job mate, it is not your fault everyone in your office thinks your a dickhead and you have no life. Nevermind, your paycheque will be coming soon so you can buy another brand new 'No War' T-shirt, well done my friend!.

Re:Terrible.

[MightyMartian]

I wouldn't say that the US Army is lead by incompetents. I suspect, privately the commanders on the ground, and very likely their superiors, are right pissed off at the situation, but there's nothing they can do about it. They were sent into hostile territory with forces sufficient to topple Iraq, but insufficient to hold it. It is well-nigh politically impossible now for the President or Congress to do the right thing and send more troops in.

Whatever you're opinion on the invasion (I personally think it was a disasterous decision which is going to haunt the US long after the neo-cons are put in their proper place), the fact remains that United States committed a huge blunder in not sending more troops. The inability to offer any kind of reasonable security to the Iraqi people, the impotence of the Iraqi "government" and its own police and security forces are such that the hearts-and-minds equation, which was supposedly so important, has been all but lost.

Despite the rhetoric, the US is now looking rather overextended, and I think the American people should start considering that, with other powers in the ascendancy, that thinly-veiled military adventurism isn't necessarily the wisest course at this time.

Bush was president on 9/11

[snowwrestler]

Just because you're not under attack on home ground and don't hear people running and screaming is no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.

Calling Bush "evil" is a bit much, but let's not go too far in the opposite direction either. On September 11, 2001, Bush had been president for almost 8 full months. He may have done OK responding to the terrorist attacks, but he certainly did not keep them from happening.

Mostly agree

[QMO]

Not that I think that the Iraq war has been very effective in eliminating terrorism, but you have also presented a false dichotomy:

"The choice was between invading Iraq and setting up more of this kind of counter-terrorist cells."
That is also not an "either-or" situation, because both are being done.

Still, I thought that your post and the linked article were interesting.

Re:Mostly agree

[ThinWhiteDuke]

You're right, of course.

IMHO, both propositions are completely unrelated. We could invade Iraq or not. We can set up more counter-terrorist cells or not. Each proposition should be (have been?) decided on its own merits.

Experts?

[HogynCymraeg]

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

Typical of a government wishing to force a change onto an unwilling populous (read ID Cards). History just repeats itself.

Mind of a terrorist

[Qool]

Innocent lives were lost in vain today. Terrorism is mindless evil, I agree. But have you ever considered the mindset of a terrorist?

Hundreds of children got orphaned in the quest for Saddam in Iraq. Here's a sample of what could be going through their minds...

"My innocent family was massacred by the US bombing. I heard the people of the US vote their leaders... and the same people couldn't prevent their leaders from doing this. Why shouldn't they be responsible for shattering my childhood? School, education, etc. isnt important for me. Revenge is."

Re:Mind of a terrorist

[KD5YPT]

So, you're suggesting that we should "Leave No Orphans" behind?

War and Terrorism (two are different things) are both a vicious cycle. Let's reverse the thinking, if my family were killed by terrorists, that I know are from a certain country, I will SURE AS HELL want my country to beat the crap out of said country (ABC weapons included). Sure, I want revenge, but I don't go out and ask my country to massacre every last child, woman, and man just because they all have potentials to become a terrorist.

I send my condolences to those who lost their family in the terrorist attack.

Re:Yes yes.

[linzeal]

That is because we gave billions of dollars in military technology to the Israelis who used it to murder Palestinians.

The root problem is Israeli agression for the most part and the House of Saud when it comes to Saudi Arabia in particular. We should of overthrown the Saudi family they are worse than Iraq ever was when it comes to the treatment of women, but that will not stir up much animosity while Bush's buddies rake in the billions behind the scenes with them.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[LKM]

I do have to admit I am starting to wonder if we in Europe are all to willing to give sancuary to extremists that don't like the (general) values of our country.

Awesome! So you figured out how to read people's minds? Great! Now we can differentiate between the 99.99% legitimate refugees who simply seek shelter and the 0.01% who are extremist terrorists!

Quick, notify our governments!

Number juggling

[nalfeshnee]

I have read loads of comments so far, but not seen anything on analysing the date in terms of numerical significance. Here some ideas.

Obviously it's the 7th of the 7th, and 2+0+0+5 = 7. And seven is an important number in pretty much *any* religion/worldview one cares to name.

Also: a year ago today the USS Cole trial opened, charging six Yemenis with the attack. At that time an Al Qaida unit also said that they were going to open up a third front on the US (the other two being Iraq and Afghanistan) in Jemen. A link is here: http://www.command-post.org/gwot/2_archives/013399 .html.

Anything else?

Ghandi was a pussy?

[TamMan2000]

I played soccer with someone from the towers as a kid, so take that argument somewhere else...

Ask the Brits if they think Ghandi was a pussy.

And lastly, our striking back at them is what gets them the continued support they need ot function. Muhammad 6 pack (I know, it's terrible...) doesn't think all westerners are inharantly evil. He just lost his brother/son/father/sister in an attack by US forces, and hates our foreign policy. Give him no reason to hate us, and Al Queda loses the vast majority of their esential support, and therefor loses ability to conduct operations.

Re:Ghandi was a pussy?

[Gravedigger3]

I'm not saying Ghandi was a pussy, it worked for that situation but it doesn't apply here.

"And lastly, our striking back at them is what gets them the continued support they need ot function."

Yes but when they strike us it gets us the support to fight back. It's a vicious circle.

"Give him no reason to hate us, and Al Queda loses the vast majority of their esential support, and therefor loses ability to conduct operations."

Are you joking? They will hate us as long as we keep our way of life. They have been killing innocent people and blowing things up long before we did anything to them. Even if we no longer are a target they will attack others and that means they must be taken down.

Many people have this attitude that the USA is its own world and that as long as they aren't attacking us its not our problem. We may not have been chosen to police the world but if there is even a chance that we can prevent tragedies like this then it is our responsibility to take action.

We will never get anywhere by being pacifists. They wont leave us alone for not fighting back they will just keep attacking. And we have a choice between losing lives in a battlefield between soldiers or having familes blown up in a tower or train station I chose the first option.

I say we fight them, even if we cant win at least we are trying and at the very least it will give them a military target to focus on instead of innocent people.

Re:Ghandi was a pussy?

[WhiplashII]

...our striking back at them is what gets them the continued support they need...

I disagree with this - I think that striking back at a sponsoring government has hurt them terribly. Yes, they now have lots of people willing to blow themselves up, but they now have no government contacts to provide passports, transportation, financing, etc. I believe that is why they have not been effective outside the middle east recently (I going out on a limb here and predicting that the London bombs were a local job) - and they will eventually run out of suicide bombers, as someone has said. (Actually, the reason they will run out is because the bombers signed up to kill Americans, and they end up killing Muslims - bad for morale)

Re:Ghandi was a pussy?

[TamMan2000]

Yes but when they strike us it gets us the support to fight back. It's a vicious circle.

No Shit Sherlock! That is my fucking point, we can break it, or let it go on for decades to come, the choice is ours.

Are you joking? They will hate us as long as we keep our way of life. They have been killing innocent people and blowing things up long before we did anything to them. Even if we no longer are a target they will attack others and that means they must be taken down.

When do you think they started blowing things up, and when do you think we did something to them? (I suspect you might be missing historical details largely ignored in western education...)

Of Mice and Men.

[Fantastic Lad]

"Shadow Government" "U.S. population is extremely ignorant" "9-11 was deliberately manufactured"

Why is speaking openly about important issues a 'troll'?

Are we only allowed to talk about things which don't matter?

Sorry, but these subjects are intimately related to the bombings today. If we can only talk about things which have no connection to the bombings, nothing of any importance will be said. If you can't handle that, perhaps it's time for you to get out of the kitchen.

But then, of course, you clearly think I'm talking nonsense. Fine. Please allow me to address this. I'll pick the notion of the Shadow Government because of the three you singled out, it is perhaps the one people find most difficult to accept. . .

If the current U.S. administration were to be wiped out in an attack, who would fill in the empty seats and direct the military? (There is an official answer to that question. Look it up).

Next: Are those people who would step into those seats already directly involved in the current military and system of government? (Answer: Yes. If there was a sudden attack and a new administration had to take over, there is no time to sit around bringing people up to speed; they have to be at speed already, built right into the decision-making processes).

Next: Who voted for those individuals? (Answer: Nobody. The system has its own internal power and decision-making structure and does not pay attention to democratic processes.)

Next: If not through winning votes, how do you get yourself into that system?

Enough. --I find it interesting that the media has invested so much energy into labeling people who ask such questions as, 'crazy conspiracy theorists'. --I find it pathetic that people are so scared to being laughed at that they fall for it.

"Those who have the courage of a lion will not have the fate of a mouse."

-FL

Re:Today was not a good day to get the wrong train

[Larry Lightbulb]

Educate would have been a better word than breed.

Neocons: Invade the world, invite the world.

[Baldrson]

Why isn't it obvious that this is:

1. Caused by the insane dual policy of:
   1. Invade the world to impose our form of society.
   2. Invite the world by opening the borders to all the people who want to exploit or hate us as a result.
2. An excuse used by the neocons to get us to give up our freedom in exchange for their supposed "protection" against the resulting "terrorism".
3. Mainly in the foreign policy interests of Israel.

?

Re:Neocons: Invade the world, invite the world.

[Ill_Omen]

Why isn't it obvious that this is:

1. Caused by the insane dual policy of:
1. Invade the world to impose our form of society.
2. Invite the world by opening the borders to all the people who want to exploit or hate us as a result.


Actually, what's obvious to me that this is caused by a small group of socio and psychopathic people that think that killing random civillians is the way to air their grievances.

Sorry, the whole "blame the victim" thing never appealed to me.

Re:You have to learn history before you can ignore

[WhiplashII]

The US was giving massive amounts of aid and weapons to Israel, ticking people off...

Further, if you look we were also giving massive amounts of aid (and admitedly fewer weapons) to the arab countries as well... perhaps we gave more to the Israelies, but then they had the advantage of not having a religion that forces them to look down at us as much. When you want aid money, spitting on it as it is handed out is a bad idea!

You're Wrong

[eno2001]

"The US" is a shortening of... (wait for it) "The United States of America". Bzzt!!! Wrong again in a long list of previous failures. ;P

Re:You're Wrong

[shaitand]

Umm, no. The US is a shortening of "The United States"; the USA is a shortening of "The United States of America". Legally the former is not a shortening of the latter and technically only refers to the government.

The United States is the government that runs the United States of America. However the GP is full of it, most Americans refer to themselves as Americans. America as used by Americans is indeed a shortening of the title of OUR NATION not the name of the continent.

Re:You're Wrong

[eno2001]

Most people (read *I*) use US and USA interchangably. That is because US is a shortening of USA. They are both the same thing. When people ask me where I'm from when I travel, I've been known to say "The United States" or "The United States of America". However, I usually just say "The United States" since it's shorter. When people ask me what I am in terms of nationality, I usually say "Citizen of the US". Of course, I really actually consider myself a World Citizen.

Re:You're Wrong

[databyss]

No, "The US" is short for "The United States", you're thinking of "The USA".

What is this list of previous failures you speak of?

Re:You're Wrong

[databyss]

"However the GP is full of it, most Americans refer to themselves as Americans."

I didn't say we called ourselves "The US", I said we call our country "The US".

Re:You're Wrong

[eno2001]

What is this list of previous failures you speak of?

I was speaking generally of the entire Slashdot community. ;P (I'm feeling cheeky today)

Re:You're Wrong

[pudge]

Umm, no. The US is a shortening of "The United States"; the USA is a shortening of "The United States of America". Legally the former is not a shortening of the latter and technically only refers to the government. The United States is the government that runs the United States of America.

Actually, no. Both refer to precisely the same thing. What is this "legally" you speak of? No law distinguishes between the two terms.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[rxmd]

What conservatives forget is that killing all the terrorists and invading country after country in the Middle East won't magically make the problem go away.

Hmm, that's why WWII ended because folks sat around tables discussing ways to solve the problems, right? [...] History, you know, kinda has a habit of repeating itself.

In WW2, it was clear who exactly the enemy was, where they were and why they were enemy; it was a war between clearly defined parties where it was possible to defeat one of them militarily by carpet bombing their cities and eventually either occupying or nuking them.

Here, it's an entirely different kind of war:

• It's not clear who's involved at all; the US, that's obvious, but who is the enemy? Bin Laden? Al-Qaida, where we can't even clearly deliminate the membership? All terrorists, whoever they are? Islam? All Muslims? All militant Muslims, however they are defined? All evil people in the world? All evil leaders in the world? Evil in general? Satan?
  
• it's not clear where the enemy is. The Middle East in general? Afghanistan? Iraq? Everywhere?
  
• it's not clear why both parties are fighting each other. Defend freedom? Defeat evil, well, both sides are probably claiming this, aren't they? Secure oil? Take revenge for actual support of Israel? Take revenge for perceived general anti-Islamic stance of "the West"? Take revenge in general? Convert all the world to Islam?

History may repeat itself, but if you only see repeating patterns all over without looking at the actual events in detail, you're guaranteed to miss an important thing or two.

Go read the newspaper

[linzeal]

It is that sort of thinking that gives them a tactical advantage in the field and allows them to become ever greater at spreading terror. All men act through reason even if it is not their own. We must understand the enemy or all of our malice may just end with us becoming like him. We are already admittedely over 25k civilian deaths in Iraq caused by the US occupation. If you do think that if that was happening in Wisconson that the cheeseheads wouldn't be terrorizing the rest of the US for invading for the cheese than you are mistaken. We have backed these people in a corner and forced them to fight like this.

The best thing we can do is abandon Isreal to the wolves and get out of the whole region and spend the money we would of spent there on researching new alternative fuel sources.

Re:Go read the newspaper

[stlhawkeye]

We have backed these people in a corner and forced them to fight like this.

Nobody is forcing them to pick up a gun and fight. What corner were they backed into in 1993? We left Iraq. How in the world were our leftover bases in Saudi Arabia "backing them into a corner"?

Re:Go read the newspaper

[linzeal]

We supply billions in weapons to Israel every year. We allow Israel to develop nuclear weapons with our knowledge while actively prohibiting all other countries in the region from arming themselves defensively. We turn our backs on Palestine for 40 years while Israel turns farm land into subdivisions and strip malls. We install or support with weapons 3 of the most repressive regimes in the history of the region, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Than we pursue their 'freedom fighters' like dogs into caves and other underground places and you are telling me that is not backing them into a corner?

If New York was being bombed by Pakistan to liberate us from Bush don't you think that our freedom fighters would use similiar methods to lessen support in the middle east for an attack on the united states?

Re:Go read the newspaper

[stlhawkeye]

We install or support with weapons 3 of the most repressive regimes in the history of the region, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

This is all true. Why then, do so many Americans oppose fixing the problems we've caused?

Than we pursue their 'freedom fighters' like dogs into caves and other underground places and you are telling me that is not backing them into a corner?

Who was being pursued into a cave in 1993? Stop with the red herrings. Nobody is forcing them to fight. They're fighting because they don't want a democracy. Another poster nailed it - this is about power, and a free Islamic state threatens the power base of a fear society.

If New York was being bombed by Pakistan to liberate us from Bush don't you think that our freedom fighters would use similiar methods to lessen support in the middle east for an attack on the united states?

If Bush had slaughtered the entire population of Ohio with mustard gas, thrown political opponents off rooftops, allowed his relatives to kidnap and rape civilians, tortured and killed people who openly voiced dissent who didn't go to church on Sunday, and had racked up a death toll of over 1 million Americans, and Pakistan invaded the nation, overthrew him, and began to set up a democracy in his place, while fighting off American militia who were trying to push them out, I would run up and give every Pakistani soldier I saw a big wet smooch on the cheek.

Re:Go read the newspaper

[linzeal]

Lol, stop repeating bushisms like they hate democracy and such. In 1993 bin laden was pissed off because the Saudi family and his own had deported and disowned him partly do to pressures from the US who were beginning to see the formation of a cadre of radical rich islamists. Spoiled brats from the afghanistan effort that had been supplied in part by Bin Laden and CIA money working in concert.

The reasons we should not be in the mideast are..we have no idea how long it will take, democracy by obliteration works only on countries already united like germany or japan after the war, and by doing anything in the region at this point will only create more terrorists. No country that has had a 'democracy' installed by the force of another country has stood the test of time and I doubt a place as sectarian as Iraq will be any different. In other words these actions that are killing Iraqis and US soldiers is futile.

Re:Go read the newspaper

[stlhawkeye]

Lol, stop repeating bushisms like they hate democracy and such.

If that's what Bush says, then so be it. It's what I think, and I can't help it if the President manages to be right now and then. His opinion isn't my problem. Should I disagree with him on everything just because I disapprove of his policies? How does that make me anything but a partisan hack?

I've been over and over the flaw in my oversimplification in bin Laden's motives in this thread, if you're interested in anything more than pounding on somebody you (erroneously) have assumed to be a Republican hack, go read the rest of it.

The reasons we should not be in the mideast are..we have no idea how long it will take

That's not an argument not to wage war. Granted, democracies, and America in particular, do not suffer prolonged conflict well. World War II was an exception (in some ways) because of the depression. And the conventional wisdom is that wars should be ended as quickly as possible. However, the "war" part of Iraq was over with in a matter of weeks. What's left would be called terrorism if it were happening anywhere else. Our role is a combination of a national defense force and an occupying power. Our role as "occupiers" is fading since occupiers typically exert political control over the state they occupy. The amount of political influence that we've exerted over Iraq's new constitution is far less than the conditions that MacArthur put on, say, the Japanense, and I actually think it's a mistake. If we're going to go to all this trouble and expense, we damn well better make sure that what emerges from Iraq is a nation with an excellent shot at accomplishing our foreign policy aims (Islamic democracy).

That doesn't mean that I think we should hand-pick their people, only that we should have made a more clear and precise plan as to what kind of government we would nurture there. MacArthur made Hirohito admit that he's not divine (although he quietly reaffirmed this later in his life), but allowed him to maintain a ceremonial role as Emperor to give the Japanese a sense of continuity from the Dai Nippon to the republic of Japan. There's no such continuity in Iraq. Perhaps for the better, time will tell. MacArthur also insisted on women being involved in democracy because he knew, as some modern pundits do, that women have a stabilizing affect on men and thus on policy, and that women's rights would help mitigate the samurai culture of Japan. In many ways, I think MacArthur did right by Japan, despite imposing limitations and rules on their new government that America would, today, be widely blasted and condemned for attempting to impose on Iraq or anybody else.

The political situations are not analogous (Iraq never bombed Iraq), but the social climate of Dai Nippon and Hussein's Iraq have paralels from which we can draw lessons in history. Long story short: the "war" part is over. What we're seeing now is normal, and not something that should cause us to tuck tail and run.

I would like to see the President outline his exit strategy for Iraq. I see one emerging, but I think it's by force of accident rather than planning. Bush may luck into an amazing success story in Iraq that will redefine the political structure of the Middle East in a fundamental and mostly good way.

democracy by obliteration works only on countries already united like germany or japan after the war

Two flaws in your argument. First, you state this as a fact without providing any logical or emperical support for it. Second, you employ use of an analogy when the circumstances of the modern-day case do not match the key elements of the compared case. We were fighting the sovereign nations of Japan and Germany. We were fighting against their governments and military. We are not fighting the government of Iraq or it's military. We're setting up one and training the other.

and by doing anything in the region at this point will only creat

you people are depressing.

[Em Emalb]

Quite a few dead in England and all you can do is get in a pissing contest over who to blame.

No wonder our country is fucked.

My heart goes out to the families and friends of those lost in this cowardly, pathetic attack.

The rest of you: shame on you.

Re:Congestion Fee?

[Larry Lightbulb]

You're suggesting it was Red Ken who planted the bombs? Actually the congestion fee has been suspended today and possibly for the rest of the week.

The truth is somewhere in-between

[DG]

Like most things, the truth lies between these two extremes "We did something bad to deserve it" and "terrorists are insane and irrational".

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:The truth is somewhere in-between

[dajak]

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.

I don't think this is about different conceptions of honour. Washington was able to defeat the British with French help, and he knew that. You don't meet an army in the field if there is not even the remotest possibility of achieving some goal, either directly or indirectly. The French resistance could never have defeated the Germans, but their actions assisted the allies who were going to come eventually and liberate France.

Western armies have been targeting civilians for centuries. "Honour" never prevented that. What terrorists do is just a new combination of geurilla tactics and targeting civilians. Both tactics are common, but they are rarely combined.

Military technology has now basically made it impossible for a citizen army to defeat a professional one on the field, and a Washington today would be dead long before he has build an army. Today Washington would have to choose between the path of Gandhi and the path of Bin Laden.

The path of Gandhi only works if the enemy can be shamed into submission, and requires a very good understanding of the morality of the enemy (and cooperation of the media).

The path of Bin Laden might work as long as you are capable of escalating the level of atrocity while not loosing the support of a population to hide in. This depends on how evil the "Great Satan" is perceived to be.

Re:The truth is somewhere in-between

[nicklott]

I agree with you almost 100%, however I take issue with your statement that Islamic cultures do not discriminate between civilian and military targets. I do not claim to be an expert in arab culture, but these people are as intelligent as anyone else in the world; the difference between a bunch a language students on a bus and the field headquarters of the 9th armoured division is apparent to anyone.

The two examples you use of revolutionaries not attacking civilian targets have one very crucial difference to the contemporary "terrorist" organisations; they were fighting a war on their own land: the civilians were their brothers, mothers and cousins. The modern attacks have been carried out on foreign (to the perpetrators) soil. They are at "war" with these countries, so everyone is a valid target.

An equally valid (and equally flawed) WWII analogy is the allied fire bombings of Hamburg and Dresden. These were raids on almost purely civilian targets, carried out after the war was effectively already won, and intended to terrify Germany into submission. "Bomber" Harris did not differentiate between civilian and military targets (though the many crews who refused to drop their bombs did), and there was certainly nothing honourable about it.

Basically, an army on foreign soil makes little distinction between civilian and military targets. Only when they're fighting close to home do they stop and think about who's actually being killed.

Re:The truth is somewhere in-between

[DG]

Islam, like Christianity, is not a homogeneous bloc. I do not claim that "Islam" does not discriminate between military and civillian targets, but rather "elements of Islam".

However, independant of that disclaimer, the entire concept of a hard separation between legitimate and illegitimate targets in war is largely a Western cultural phenomenon. That's not to say that non-Western cultures make NO discrimation, but rather, that the discrimination is much more fuzzy than it is in the West - at least on paper. (One need only see a picture of a naked pile of Iraqi prisoners to see that the situation in Western nations isn't pure black and white)

DG

You're probably not from Oklahoma

[Merk]

Cuz a truck bomb can do a wee bit more than shatter windows.

Re:You're probably not from Oklahoma

[squiggleslash]

Ok, but the point is you can't blow up a building just by using a conventional "truck bomb" (if there is such a thing as a conventional truck bomb.) The Oklahoma situation destroyed a large part of a building and killed and injured many people, but the building was clearly there afterwards. Unlike, say, 9/11.

Re:Look before you rant..

[KagatoLNX]

It's not just capitalism at work detering suicide bombers in the US. Keep in mind that there are many types of coercion possible in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Syria that just aren't so easy to pull off in the US.

Looking at the daily suicide bombing in Iraq, you'd think they show a decent pool of people willing to die.

However, many of them have been shown to be handcuffed to the steering wheel of their bomb-laden car. Most of these are then detonated by someone watching.

Most disturbing are the reports that these people are often sympathetic to the new Iraqi regime. Insurgents target these people, chain them to bombs, and give them the option to drive up to the enemy + get blown up + have your family live or not drive up to the enemy + get blown up + have your family die.

It's particularly insidious but note that most foreign fighters must be brought to the US, since it can be tough to make a whole, local family disappear here. Police are just too eager and effective to let something like that slide.

In the same vein as the parent post, all of this is pretty much the direct consequence of religion (defined as religious institutions specifically). Religion has always been about creating a control structure (and all of the coercion that comes with it). People will tell you that you can't have God without religion, but I believe that to be obviously false.

You cannot have a religion without somebody in charge (they fracture into small cults, read about the Branch Davidians). In creating this structure, someone always dictates what "the greater good" wants.

Radical militant Muslim extremests are but one of the examples, but the corrosive effects of systematized social coercion can be much more insidious. I live in the Midwest US (town of less than 350,000 people) and I've known more than one person to leave a church because of serious pressure to vote a certain way.

When God dictates it, there can be no dissent. Without dissent, there can be no democracy. I don't think that anyone's God wants a totalitarian state (theocratic or otherwise). The fallacy lies in a man dictating the word of their "God".

Not that I'm so sure about the whole "God" thing...

Re:Respond with more force

[Rei]

Fallujah and other hotbeds of terrorism should be reduced to overlapping bonb craters

It's good to know that you think we should make general practice of nuking cities the size of Pittsburgh. That'll prevent a dozen desparate loners from rising up among the 90% of the world (who would see that as brutally barbaric, stalinistic, and view America as the greatest evil of our time), and strike out at us. It's also sure to promote our interests worldwide; everyone loves to trade with nations that kill hundreds of thousands at a time. There's no better way to save a city than to destroy it. And when, as things stand today alone, China is viewed as a more appropriate world leader than America by even our allies like the Aussies, we can make everything better with a couple well-placed nuclear ICBMs on densely populated cities.

Ack, sorry! I just noticed that the Sarcasm-Lock light is glowing on my keyboard. Oh well, I'll retype this later.

Whatever

[SPYvSPY]

I totally disagree. When are people going to start taking the threat of Islamic supremecy seriously. This attack is the result of leniency in the name of sensitivity and fairness. There's a difference between what's fair, what's wrong and what's stupid. Every time we see commuters dying (be they Americans, Iraqis, Israelis, Palestinians, Afghans or English) we know we're getting something wrong. To conclude that our error is an overly-aggressive policy is just as dumb as the opposite unless you really understand the root cause--and most people can't be bothered to even know what's going on in Islamabad, Wazaristan, Kabul, Bagdhad, Damascus, etc.

yeah, the terrorists are fucking animals, anyway

[dfenstrate]

A terrorist does what he does not out of sheer spite but in order to achieve political and ideological goals.

Not always. It seems as though we're actually going up against death-worshippers in this case, who can only use thin theological reasons to justify their actions (though islam does lend itself to this sort of behaviour far more readily than judeo-christian types)

The terrorist attacks in Iraq over the past few months, with a few televised exceptions, have been mostly aimed at the Iraqi population. What kind of freedom fighter does that sort of thing?

The sort who just wants to kill people, and doesn't do it very well when they try against the US military.

Same thing in Israel and their problems with terrorists.

In both cases, they're death worshippers, who have a technique and a stated goal, but no plan on how exactly their technique (killing civilians while vulnerable with bombs) will lead to their stated goal.

No rationality. A thin veneer of politics. But ultimately, they're a bunch of crazy fuckers who like to kill 'infidels', and they need to be put down like the rabid dogs they are.

Was supporting this war based on lies a job req.?

[FatSean]

I mean, it is not just. We US citizens were handed 3 different reasons for the war. One right after the other:

Ties To Al-Quida: Never been proven...just US intelligence says this.

WMDs: Never found 'em. Only US intelligence claimed they were there

Freedom: Well the other 2 excuses failed, lets try this one.

How do you reconcile this with your belief that the war is just?

Ends justify the means?

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[databyss]

It does. I feel that whenever I talk to somebody I have to say "Yeah, I'm from the US, but I didn't vote for Bush."

Every day there's a new stereotype against us that I have to drudge through. One thing is true though. I'm way too lazy to say "I am a citizen of the United States of America" anytime somebody wants to know where I'm from. "American" works and I have yet to find somebody confused from it.

I'd ask for suggestions but the wave of AC posts recommending Fatty, Moron and Warmonger wouldn't be worth my time to read.

He's an asshole, not a terrorist.

[PxM]

He gets grouped in with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. He killed his own people to control them rather than to achieve political gains with another country.

Police request preservation of digital comms

[Elphin]

I've just received the following email via our datacenter, never seen one of these before, requesting preservation of digital communications, logs etc.... here's the message in full.

------------
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:Police request preservation of digital comms

[Anonymous Coward]

UK police and criminal intelligence people have wanted to ask for this for a very very long time. In fact this wish predates the madrid bombing and even 911!

Some time ago they wrote a position paper stating that it would be smart to force telecommunication providers (telephone & ISP`s) to store who telephones who, who e-mail`s who, who visites which sites and then some. They didn`t go into the details. The central point of these plans is that the internet is just like the phone system and therefore they should be able to request logs. The only dabate is for how long these log should be retained and how to keep within the european human right treaty which says every privacy invasion should be "proportional". But guess what, it wasn`t just the oppinion of some crazy bobbies (uk cops), it was a real plan

ignored are still

• The fact that telecommunications providers don`t have a clue who communicates with with who, they only know what phone or computer talks with which other phone or computer network and where the bill for all this goes. No biometric passport is required to make a phone call and the first thing many Europeans do when answering the phone is... say their name. Do you know who clicked the "send" button on that penis enhancement e-mail? Notice how your e-mail asks for " Radius or other IP address to user resolution logs" not for "ip addres to *acount* resolution logs"? How much do you wanna bet this person doesn`t know the slight difference? How much do you bet that a defense lawyer does know the difference once your logs end up in court as evidence? A terrorist might walk (can`t prove he was the one behind the computer) and you just invested a million in terabytes of storage space and sniffing/logging equipment....
• The fact that the cases where the billing details arent the personal details of whoever is communicating may quite heapon to be the very cases they claim to want to investigate, namely terrorism and serious crime. (Although "serious" has been stripped from recent proposals). Who is the last guy you saw use a public pay-phone on TV? I will give you a hint he was called Anthony and the show is called the Sopranos....
• the fact that on the Internet everyone is free to encode their application traffic anyway they want. Want to build an e-mail system that uses hyrogliphics for e-mail adresses? go ahead. Want to run you web traffic on port 666? Why not, dont forget to give your tcp packet a protocol type of 66 to ;-)

Telephone companies can expect normal and "lawfull interception" equipment ready to handle any new standardized signaling system for sending phone numbers around. Isp`s will have to hack their collection systems with every new way of evading capture and every new new Internet application protocol. Also isp`s will be collecting many gigabytes every minute, (and many times that on peek hours), which is tough. But what is really tough is that Internet traffic grows so much faster than telephone traffic. Isp`s will en up having to buy extra storrage every month. And what should a application level traffic data collection system do when it reaches storage or processing capacity limits? Signal core routers to throttle Internet traffic routing?

But wait, won`t the UK politicians dislike this plan even more than the ID card plan? Yes they very well might! If only there was some sort of commision of european justice a interior affairs ministers that could make laws without input from any pairlements.... Thank god we don`t yet have one of those, but there is the justice and home office comity of the European council. They answer only to the national pairlements but as the software patents showed, what national pairlement actually cares about what goes on ins Brussels? I mean, what hea

Re:Police request preservation of digital comms

[Pansy]

Honestly, how much data do they expect you to be able to retain? Some of this stuff makes technical sense (i.e. logs, etc.) but the amount of data generated by others would be huge. There's a fixed amount of disk space available, I mean they can't expect you to delete your pron cache on the RAID or remove your mp3s from the SAN just because of some terrorists can they? If we do that the terrorists win.

I'd just edit the logs and say the message was lost due to high network volume :)

Re:Police request preservation of digital comms

[myowntrueself]

Must be the biggest phishing opportunity in history...

Who benefits the most? Why would this happen NOW?

[X.25]

Does anyone wonder who will benefit, in the long, the most out of this? War-hungry politicians, maybe?

Call me paranoid, but I bet Iran or Syria will be "freed" (in Bush/Blair way, as in Iraq) in matter of months...

Re:This was innevitable

[Coryoth]

However, I honestly believe a lot of the ground troops in Al Quaeda - probably some of the people who planted these bombs - joined up because of the innocent civilians who died in those military actions. If you stop the people they're recruiting, it won't matter what the leaders think.

I think a lot of people are misinformed about what exactly al Qaeda is. They don't have ground troops, they don't have an army, and post the Afghanistan invasion they don't even have much of anything resembling an organisation anymore.

What al Qaeda are/were was essentially a venture capital firm for terrorists - they would give funding to anyone who came to them with good ideas about how to kill Americans (or other westerners). Relatively speaking they were pretty small, but they did have a fair amount of cash. Usama bin Laden didn't, as far as we can tell, mastermind the WTC and Pentagon attacks. He didn't come up with the idea, he didn't plan them. He did provide the cash to the people who did though, presumably because he thought it sounded like a good idea when they came looking for funding.

Post Afghanistan al Qaeda as a funding system for terrorists is largely destroyed - they still have money, but the means to disburse it is ridiculously curtailed. Al Qaeda were, really, quite a small group, and what little there was of them was largely captured, disbanded, or dispersed.

What we have now is, instead, disparate groups of islamist terrorists (which we've always had) who have a common name to rally behind and attribute their work to - a name happily provide and publicised by the western media. It would surprise me not in the least to find that the perpertrators of the London bombings have never met with bin Laden, or any member of al Qaeda for that matter. I fully expect they are an entirely independent unrelated group who are borrowing/using the "al Qaeda" name because it carries greater recognition. Read their name and statement again with this in mind - they sound exactly like a small group of idiots trying to pretend to be a super secret branch of an organisation they've heard plenty about and would love to join, but for the life of them can't figure out how (perhaps demonstrations of terrorist acts will do it they think).

We are not facing an army, nor a terror network, nor a grand machiavellian plot. We are facing random disjoint groups islamist radicals who now have a convenient name to ascribe to so they can have a pretend sense of "belonging".

Jedidiah.

Re:What will the EU do?

[syphax]

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

Really? Have you read this book?

(A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin)

Please mod parent up

[FungiFromYuggoth]

It astonishes me how many people forget about the anthrax attacks. Especially in the context of proclaiming what a great job Bush has done vis-a-vis terrorism.

Re:THE AMERICANS DID IT

[BungoMan85]

conspiracy theory - proof = idiocy

Re:What will the EU do?

[Jeremi]

Comparing car acidents or smoking-related (not "caused", no causal link with tobacco has been established, only a correlation with excessive smoking) is to my mind a non sequitur

[...]

The war (and home security measures) has so far prevented another 9/11.

I think your non-sequitur detector is only working sporadically....

Also, it was by no means a rash "berserk" decision

I think "berserk" part of the decision was the method by which they gathered support for the invasion: by deliberately lying to the public. It's the dishonesty, as much as anything else, that has cost the US leadership their moral legitimacy, and led to many of the problems in Iraq today. Few people (in Iraq or elsewhere) feel genuine loyalty to a bald faced liar.

Bull. Shit.

[Grendel Drago]

That's a really comforting thought, but it's bullshit.

Okay, let's look at CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. They're a large nonprofit, and whenever you see someone quoted in the media saying "Islam means peace!", there's a good chance it's a CAIR spokesperson. So, we can call CAIR a major islamic organization.

And, hey, look, they talk a lot about being peaceful and not liking terrorists. Ooh, but what's this? The Yahoo! articles have expired, but Wikipedia contains the goods. In short, CAIR's board members and higher-ups have been convicted of or pled guilty to laundering money for Hamas and of visa and bank fraud in the process of funding terrorist groups. Oh, and of toting military weapons around New York City in September 2001 and providing material support to Al Qaeda.

Condemned, yes. Distanced, hardly. I wish it weren't so.

--grendel drago

Re:Bull. Shit.

[mr100percent]

Why is it that it's a very politically unwise move to criticize Israeli and Jewish groups like the ADL and AIPAC, which has its share of extremists within, but CAIR gets all the suspicion?

The Wiki entry is garbage, it's sources are all Frontpage magazine and National Review, Daniel Pipes and Laura Ingram, all right-wing news and columnists. All of those accusations are just that, accusations. CAIR has a huge membership, and right-wing Muslims hate the organization because it's so liberal, so pro-American, and unwilling to criticize Bush too harshly. Even Wikipedia acknowledges The neutrality of this article is disputed on the top of its page.

CAIR does plenty of actual honest and good work. They've alerted the government to hate crimes, publicized cases where employees were fired for their religion, and tried to present their side on News shows. Now that the US government had nearly all Muslim immigrants fingerprinted and photographed, and announced that they'd be spying domestically on the American Muslim community and in the face of increasing deportations, I'd say that CAIR is needed in America.

As someone who's read and kept every CAIR email for the last 2 and a half years at the state and national chapter level, I'd say they're clean. They condemn terrorism so much, so strongly, and so often that to me they sound like a broken record. Their "Not in the Name of Islam" petition against terrorism has 688,878 signatures at last count. CAIR-NY on July 1 announced that they disagree and disapprove of a Muslim group in NYC that pickets gay parades.

Ah yes, and lest I forget: CAIR Condemns 'Barbaric' London Terror Attacks. Wow, they called other Muslims "Barbaric," do you still think they're with the extremists?

For all those who missed out over the past few years:

CAIR Condemns killing of British Hostage in Iraq

CAIR Calls for Release of All Hostages in Iraq

CAIR-CAN Condemns Anti-Semitic Graffitti

CAIR Sends Condolences to Korean Ambassador

CAIR Calls for Release of Iraq Hostages, Ceasefire

CAIR Condems Mutilation of Bodies in Iraq

CAIR Condemns Killings in Iraq, Pakistan

CAIR Condemns Attacks on Civilians

US Muslims Condemn Church Attack in Pakistan

CAIR Condemns 9/11 attack

Paul Hill

[bayers]

Paul Hill was a kind and gentle man who looked like he could be your dentist. One day he bought a shotgun and gunned down an abortionist and his bodyguard in cold blood. Paul Hill had prayed with his prayer group and came to the conclusion that God wanted these people dead.

Paul Hill knew full well the State of Florida would execute him because of his actions. He died on the gurny, with a leathal drip in his arm. He was surrounded by members of his prayer group. They were all crying. They were crying because Paul was going to heaven. They were crying tears of joy.

Paul Hill believed that God's law took precidence over man's law.

Re:Paul Hill

[KD5YPT]

He also converniently forgot this passage
"Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." - Roman 12:19 (also read 20~21 if you read Bible).

Priorities

[ShootThemLater]

Driving home to London from the airport this afternoon, I was comforted to notice the two police cars, two pursuit bikes and about a dozen officers stoically protecting us from terrorists by, er, running a speed trap.

Gotta keep the revenue flowing, eh?

Seriously though, the response of the emergency services, and the attitude of those caught in London has been impressive. Makes one proud to be British. As so many others have pointed out, the terrorists will not truly win with tactics like this.

Afgahnistan

[joggle]

We basically abandoned Afgahnistan in the early 90s. We all know what happened after that.

While Iraq isn't as bad off as Afgahnistan was, it's getting there.

Bombs not as lethal as you might think

[DG]

Oddly, bombs are nowhere near as lethal as you might think. If a bomb goes off in a crowded space, you get a lot of injuries, but typically only the people immediately near the blast are killed - and even then, pure blast effects are usually survivable.

If there isn't a lot of fragmentation, and/or if there is another person between you and the blast, you will probably survive.

The follow-on effects are more dangerous - structural collapse, fire, smoke, trampling etc. In a bus, I would expect very few of these to play any real part, and so would expect outright fatalities to be small.

DG

FYI

[dusanv]

I'll clue you in a little bit if you don't mind. The war against Serbia/Kosovo was run by NATO countries (started by US obviously although never actually declared) and enjoyed strong support of some other states (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, ...). I leave it up to you to decide whether that constitutes wide international support. It most certainly wasn't UN sanctioned. US allies on the ground were the KLA which were listed as a terrorist organisation up to that point by the State Department.

Re:FYI

[dusanv]

He was clearly talking about the war/intervention, not about the successive events.

Re:Propaganda

[rutledjw]

Bin Laden was pushing for purification and removal of western influences in the early 80s. He accepted our aid in Afghanistan as we were convenient and a needed source of arms. But let's be careful, he certianly didn't like the US OR our ongoing influence in the region. Yes, the Gulf War inflamed this dramatically. While I can't remember if he singled out America prior to 1991, he WAS very much Anti-West and was NOT pro-American.

You haven't stated what you believe his TRUE ulterior motives are. Power in Saudi Arabia? Control of the entire Middle East? He was already very powerful from an economic standpoint (family money from their Saudi-based construction company), so I'm assuming you think his true goals must be pretty lofty...

Way to miss my point.

[Grendel Drago]

So, you're saying that the Army of God represents your views fairly and has your blessing in their use of violence to express said views and attempt to influence policy?

Or were you just snarking at me?

--grendel drago

Re:Way to miss my point.

[eheldreth]

No, I was simply trying to state the point I cannot assign a higher value to a persons life just because of their age. For instance if a mother and child where both drowning should I save the mother because she is older than the child. At any rate, no I don't approve of vigilante justice any more than I approve of the slaughter of unborn children for no good reason(wether or not it is a medical necessity is different topic all together).

Letter to the terrorists...

[the-dark-kangaroo]

Just found this letter to the terrorists from London, http://www.lnreview.co.uk/news/005167.php

Re:It's the old saying. . .

[Xophmeister]

Gosh, trolling whilst tens of innocent people have lost their lives and hundreds more are hospitalised in various states of carnage.

You, sir, have reached a new low.

It's subtle, but definite.

[Grendel Drago]

No, no. In his own words, even. "EXPEL THE INFIDELS FROM THE ARAB PENINSULA". They want to create a caliphate under shar'ia law stretching scross the entire Middle East, and return to their glory days of the Middle Ages.

--grendel drago

Re:What will the EU do?

[Jeremi]

We picked a fight with Iraq because we were looking for WMD, which many of us knew to be a bullshit reason.

Never mind 'many of us', Bush knew it was a bullshit reason. That's why they had to 'fix the facts around the policy', instead of letting the policy fit the facts.

Whatever Bush's true reasons for the Iraq invasion were, WMDs were not one of them. WMDs were a PR trick.

Death won't stop them either

[roystgnr]

Nothing will stop them until they are dead.

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.

MISINFORMATION ALERT

[zardo]

A man is the most dangerous when you take away his hopes and dreams, and from their perspective this is exactly what we have done (I am sure I stole that quote from somewhere). Lets not forget that only one nation has ever used a Nuclear Bomb during warfare, and it was used on civilians, TO SPREAD TERROR!

Oh my god, I can't believe this guy gets an insightful moderation. People in the middle east live under Islamic law, many of the countries have controlled borders, there is no coming or going, men have the right to kill their wives (note the plurality), there are a few hoarding all the wealth brought by their oil resources while the rest live in squalor. America comes along and LIBERATES Iraq from the control of a hostile dictator, and you want to make the point that we're taking away peoples hopes and dreams? That is utterly ridiculous. Insightful? My god, this is infantile!

The nuclear bomb saved many more lives than it took. Japan would not have surrendered. That was their whole military strategy, they saw America as weak politically, they didn't think we could take a bloody conflict. Had we gone on with the trench warfare, invading the Japanese homeland with infantry, some have estimated we would have lost 500,000 lives and countless more Japanese would have died.

By the way, you are completely incorrect about Iraq having connections to Al Qaeda. I believe the talking point you were looking for is that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Al Qaeda has had a long history with Iraq, and Saddam Hussein.

It never ceases to amaze me how someone with this much misinformation could be moderated +5 Insightful. They need a damn -1 misinformation modifier.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Jeremi]

You may recall that Saddam was jerking the UN weapons inspectors around?

What I recall is that the weapons inspectors were given free reign, but then had to be withdrawn because the US was going to invade anyway.

Too bad for him, that his bluff was convincing

Too bad for us, too -- if our government hadn't been fooled by his bluff, we could have avoided this whole goddamn unnecessary war.

Sadly, it's not insane - it's just immoral.

[nick_davison]

He had a reason, but it's irrational and insane. He's religious fundamentalist, and the motivations of such people are incomprehensible to reasonable, logical thinkers.

Who said anything about it being irrational or insane? It's logical, rational and completely sane - just utterly immoral:

Find a group with prejudices.
Stir up those prejudices.
Tell them you're their only hope.
Kill a few people/commit other stunning acts to prove it.
Collect power, influence and money from those people.

Like I said, entirely rational (and very effective) - just utterly immoral.

It's also exactly the same thing politicians have done for years. Why do you think the terror alert goes up every time Bush needs to remind the public that only he can save them while the liberals would "offer therapy" to the terrorists?

One is "Religious Fundamentalism" and completely inexplainable, the other is "A Strong Leader". As for which you think is which, that tends to depend on whether you're in the US or the Middle East - while everyone else seems to look down on both of them.

It's a huge mistake to generalise and dismiss as "They're insane fanatics and there's no understanding them." That leaves you with one response: Try killing them - as there's nothing else you can do. Unfortunately, that doesn't really work too well. If you're willing to open your mind that, deeply immoral as it may be, it's just another sick politician exploiting for his own gain, then you can begin to understand it and look at far more effective ways to undermine that power base and take away his ability to continue doing such harm.

Knee jerk reactions are simple, they're easy and they're reassuring. They just don't work. Understanding (whilst disagreeing) is hard, it's uncomfortable, it makes us realise our heroes are often a lot like their villains, but it's the only way we can really effect a change.

Re:Fucking Animals

[St. Arbirix]

If any country rich with natural resources such as oil has starving populations it's entirely an internal problem.

The only people the U.S. ever helped starve were countries that actually got foreign aid. That money usually stays in the hands of members of the government and helps solidify their dominance. If there was a way to lend money directly to members of the population there'd be a chance, but my how mad would a government get if a foreign government started directly helping their people...

"Politics" Section?

[Bingo Foo]

Is it unpatriotic to ask why this is in "politics.slashdot.org" ?

I guess some people vote at the ballot box, some people vote with their feet, some people vote with their dollars, and some people vote with their semtex and C4. It's all part of the beautiful tapestry of diversity that is politics, right?

These people are monsters. this is no political act.

Re:"Politics" Section?

[KD5YPT]

I think the reason they put this under politics is the fact that there's pretty much no where else to put it.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Jeremi]

And I'm glad Bush lied

So, treason is a-okay with you, then? A fine citizen you are. I can imagine you praising Mussolini too... "sure he's a fascist thug, but he makes the trains run on time".

I don't care what the politics are

[sol_geek77]

At this point in time, I don't care who caused this or what could have prevented it. I just want to take this time to send my prayers out to the friends and families of those touched by this incident. I pray that nothing like this ever has to happen to anyone and I pray that God watches over all of us.

P.S. Yes that is God with a capital "G" even if this is slashdot

I'm not defending terrorists in any way, but...

[Spy der Mann]

shouldn't this finally convince Bush and Blair that WAR ONLY CAUSES MORE WAR?

"Oh no, let's invade Iraq, bring peace to the people and we'll be heroes woot! The world will love us!"

Newsflash: They don't.

Re:More details-Candid Camera.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Blockquoth the AC:

London has cameras all over the place. A "Big Brother" if their ever was one. But what will people say if those cameras catch the terrorists?

"That's a first."

His Domain.

[Grendel Drago]

Yeah, the problem is that bin Laden's idea of his country keeps expanding. Currently al Qaeda is looking to make all of the Middle East into a caliphate, with an eye toward expansion into Europe.

Islam has an exciting provision for proselytizing nonbelievers. Someone who follows that belief literally will consider the entire earth their rightful domain. It won't end.

--grendel drago

Re:His Domain.

[mr100percent]

Show me where he says that, please.

Bin Laden's speech in October 2004 focused on fighting for "liberty" (hurriyyah) for the Muslim collective Muslim nation (Ummah)

Bin Laden doesn't care about if Europe has Islamic law or joins the caliphate or not, because Europe mostly isn't Muslim, so it's not a part of the Ummah. You pegged him incorrectly, he hasn't said to kill all the non-believers, that's why he brought up Sweden. He's ticked off that Bush is making him out to be some sort of freedom-hating nihilist, when he sees himself as a freedom fighter.

Re:Stick to what you know boys and girls

[DrSoCold]

The strong stand, speak and be heard.....

The weak hide behind anonymous posts.....

Your beliefs are so true that you cannot even put your name to them?

Enough said.

The Cost of Boozles.

[Grendel Drago]

Ah, but that beer-drinkin' will cost you some mighty jizya!

--grendel drago

Re:The Cost of Boozles.

[Ender_Wiggin]

Jizya is overrated. Muslims in America pay taxes, some of which go to Bush's faith-based charities, ergo churches and synagogues and mosques. Jizya is only a tax like any other. In exchange, the government protects you, and allows you to build your own church or place of worship and get government protection. It also takes place of the mandatory charity that Muslims are obligated by their religion to pay. Also, if you pay Jizya, Muslims will fight and die to protect you, and you yourself will be exempt from the draft.

So knock it off, non-Muslims enjoyed greater freedoms under middle ages Islamic rule than Muslims did under Christian rule. The Golden Age of Judaism was when Jews were allowed freedom to worship in Muslim Spain, and only ended when the Inquisition drove them out, forcibly converted them, or executed them.

I have to respond...

[cr0sh]

FL is not making this shit up - there was, a few years back, media coverage on this "shadow government". It is real, it is the truth, and no matter how much you say it doesn't exist and is a crazy conspiracy theory, will not make it go away. Whether or not this "secret cabal" has ties to any recent events is unknown. Whether or not a similar group prior to 9/11 was involved in that event is unknown as well.

How about this story from the Washington Post (posted in February/March 2002)?

Or, is that all part of the conspiracy, too? Open your eyes a little, and start questioning authority! Was a "shadow government"-like system manipulating the strings for 9/11 to occur? Who knows? One has to wonder though:

• How (and better, WHY?) the USA PATRIOT Act was "just waiting in the wings" all prepared nicely to stomp on our freedoms?
• Why Bush took so damn long to respond and act after knowing about the attacks on that day?
• Why an investigation into the matter after the fact was whitewashed and swept under the carpet so fast?
• Why was the wreckage was carted away so quickly and without investigation or accident reconstruction or forensic work?
• How Bush managed to see video of the first plane hitting (which he noted at least 2 or 3 times in speeches on 9/11) when that video wasn't released to the news and public until the FOLLOWING day?
• Why all the events that have happenned since Bush came to power have seemed to follow the plan set forth on this website?
• What about the membership roster of the people of that website - why does it read like a list of who's who in our federal government?

There are so many unanswered questions, so many things being kept buried, and some days it seems the entire American populace (though I know that is a broad brush to paint with, and is most certainly untrue) are burying their heads in the sand, hiding and cowering in fear and uncertainty, shamelessly obeying their leaders.

FEAR! OBEY! FEAR! OBEY!

These are the seeming rallying crys of today's American society. It is sickening. It is reprehensible. IT IS A DAMN LIE.

Random searches in airports

[objekt]

Airport searches will no longer be done on randomly selected persons. These searches will be biased against Middle Easterners.

I don't think that change is needed. My Middle Eastern friend told that since 9/11 me he gets randomly search before every flight.

Re:go read history, not spin

[quarkscat]

There have not been any new deaths due to terrorism in the USA after 9/11/2001 only because Osama bin Laden plans carefully. As you yourself stated, 8 years passed between the first attack on the World Trade Center, and the second one. I would expect that the next attack on the USA will
be even more devestating than the World Trade Center.

The only link, prior to the USAs March 2003 invasion of Iraq, between Saddam Hussein and terrorism was the $25K USD bounty he offered to the family of each martyred suicide bomber that blew up Israelis. But now that we are there, we are considered infidel occupiers and interlopers who have despoiled Iraq. That makes us as much a target there in Iraq as our military and military-industrial complex has been as infidels on Saudi soil.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he also massed his troops on the border of Saudi Arabia, provoking a response from the USA and the Arab coalition Bush senior formed. Osama bin Laden had offered the Saudi royal family the use of Al-Queda's "militia" to drive out Saddam, which the royals refused.

But the Saudi royal family has been playing a dupliciuos game for the past 40 years -- they support the Wah'habbist sect as their "state religion", and the Wah'habbist religious police help keep the Saudi royal family in power. The Saudi royal family spends hundreds of millions of the West's oil money to spread the Wah'habbist jihad against the West throughout the world. They build (ugly) mosques and religious schools and fill them with Wah'habbist evangelists spreading their hateful bile. Osama bin Laden and his Al-Queda can more properly be thought of as the military arm of the Wah'habbist sect, rather than the "independent terrorist group" they are played up as in the press.

Osama bin Laden is now fighting the infidel USAs' troops occupying Iraq, just as they were fighting the USA on Saudi soil -- the military and the military-industrial complex that was "fouling" Islamic Saudi soil. The Wah'habbist sect's goal is to reconquor all territory once held by Islam. If you check a 15th century map of Europe, the Mediterranean would be an Islamic sea, and the Islamists would hold the Iberian Penninsula, and southern France all the way north to the gates of Vienna, and most of Russia all the way east to the Great Wall of China. That is also Osama bin Laden's goal.

There will be more, and more spectacular, terrorist attacks within the USA. The Bush administration has failed to secure our borders, to inspect all cargo entering our seaports, or to throw out the 28 million illegal aliens now in the USA. Terrorism is not Bush's primary focus, nor is defense of the homeland -- it is political advantage gained by favoring Hispanic minority interests, and the downward spiral of American wages through outsourcing and insourcing, which his corporate business interests (and primary campaign contributors) want. War is big business to government contractors big and small, and no war the USA has ever been involved in has provided as much opportunity for contractors to make that quick buck.

And rightly so.

[jotaeleemeese]

This idiotic goverment is going to waste an estimated 11 billion pounds on ID cards.

That is right, 11 billion pounds.

If they were serious about fighting terrorism that money would be better invested in combating terrorists in the ground by infiltrating their organizations.

But no, that is too unglamorous, no matter that it would address the real problem.

Re:And rightly so.

[Knuckles]

You make the mistake of believing the reason they give. In truth it makes perfect sense because they do not even try to fight terrorism with these ID cards. The goal is to enslave the entire population with their consent (because they believe that this is about the terrorists).

Re:What will the EU do?

[demachina]

"A terrorist attack is a deliberate decision on the part of another human to kill as many people, usually innocent, in the target site as is practical or possible."

So is pressing the bomb release in a bomber, especially when you are bombing cities you know are full of civilians, or firing a howitzer on a city, or the guns on a tank, its just cleaner than being a suicide bomber and you can keep doing it day after day. Suicide bombers are self punishing and one shot deals.

Militaries and terrorists are more similar than they are different, the only real differentiators are one is state sponsored, one is better equipped and one claims an aura of legitimacy, that isn't really there, just because it is run by a nation state. At the end of the day they both knowingly kill innocent civilians. Strategic bombing in World War II and Vietnam killed millions of civilians ... intentionally. As did nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Bombing Hiroshima might have been justified and ended further blooshed but Nagasaki was gratuitous and intentional killing of civilians to stoke "terror" in the minds of the Japanese. If that wasn't terrorism I don't know what is.

Western militaries will claim these days that they do everything in their power to avoid civilian casualties and sometimes they do, but in a war where the other side doesn't wear pretty uniforms and the war is happening in cities full of civilians, the fact is militaries do kil civilians, they know it, all they can say is oops, sorry, didn't mean to, here is a $100 for the death of your relative.

In a well reported incident in Israel they dropped a bomb from an F-16 in the middle of an apartment complex full of women and children in order to assassinate an adversary. They knew they were going to kill civilians, they did it anwyay intentionally. Does that make them terrorists? By your definition it does.

As soon as nation states start strategic bombing campaigns there isn't even a pretense that killing civilians is unintentional, it is usually the object, they are trying to break an adversaries will through terrorizing the civilian population. The key differenence between terrorist and armies is armies can kill vastly larger numbers of people than rag tag terrorists ever will.

Clinton, Bin Laden and the Sudan.

[Grendel Drago]

Clinton had a wonderful opportunity to kill or capture bin Laden and passed on it out of fear of what it would do to his reputation

Not according to the 9/11 commission. But I suppose you'll keep spouting that soundbite, 'cause it's so darn catchy.

--grendel drago

Re:Clinton, Bin Laden and the Sudan.

[Capt James McCarthy]

Yeah, I'm sure governments always put out memos about _all_ of their ongoings.

As for mediamatter.org's founder:

"It was launched in 2004 with David Brock as its CEO and founder. Brock is the author of four political books, including The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy. His preceding book, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, was a 2002 New York Times best-selling political memoir in which he chronicled his years as a conservative media insider. Brock serves on the advisory board of Democracy Radio Inc. and is the recipient of the New Democrat Network's first award for political entrepreneurship. He is the President and CEO of Media Matters for America."

Yeah, there's not a chance that he's biased. Besides, I can http://slate.msn.com/id/2100712/quote along with you. Personally, I like the part where he admites to making stuff up. Classic.

Terror is Terror

[Zerbs]

Why does everyone try to say that it has to be Al Qaeda to be terrorism? Did Iraq support Al Qaeda? No, probably not. They did provide training and materials to other terrorist groups though, and even paid Palestinians to become suicide bombers. Also, do not make assumptions about the U.S. being able to kill Zarqawi. That would mean that we had verifiable intelligence and a means to be able to do that. Just a hunch that he might have been there isn't enough.

Lighten up

[linzeal]

I'm actively prolife and I laugh at abortion jokes. A great man once said to wit, "If you can't laugh about something you can't do anything about it." However there is a time and place for such things and unless you are directly affected by this I think the modern day decorum is to wait for The Daily Show to see if they make fun of it.

Re:Respond with more force

[idsofmarch]

Okay, now breathe and think: what proportion of Al Qaeda/various Islamic extremists are there in proportion to the civilian population of a city like Fallujah?

Killing civilians is wrong and moreso dangerous because now you have just created more terrorists from the survivors--if your family is dead, it doesn't matter if it came from a car bomb or a missile, you're still going to be pissed and looking for vengence.

We need to be better than these fuckers, we need to find the ones responsible and kill them without killing everyone else around them. No negotiation, but specific targeted elimination. Carpet bombing no, a sniper's shot definitely.

Re:Who benefits the most? Why would this happen NO

[KD5YPT]

War brings more terrorism, because modern warfare places SO much importance on minimizing civilians casualties. While I personally don't favor this, I do believe there's only two ways the problem of terrorism can be solved.

1. Fight evil with good, forgive and make every effort to make peace (LONG, TEDIOUS, and with current political climate, not possible).
2. Wage unrestrictive/disproportional retaliative warfare (blow up one bus, massacre the whole village, think Soviet Union). (Quick, might work, might backfire, morally questionable, and hard to garner international support for this).

Take the middle ground, and you'll most likely end up soldiers dying needlessly.

I was nearly branded a

[Number6.2]

Communist 'cause I'm Left Handed!
That's the hand to use...well, never mind.

From: A Desultory Philipic, Paul Simon.

You know, as someone who almost went to Viet Nam (lottery number 412), I have only one thing to say, especially to those writing from .edu domains.

You guys are being McNamarra'd! Big Time! It's all new and exciting to you guys, but I've seen all this ...fertilizer...before!

I'm sure it feels great to be on the winning side in the election, but the end result of Iraq is going to be the end result of Viet Nam: casualties. And the greatest damage is going to be done to the tender part between the ears.

6.2

--
My mom is only forgetful sometimes. Does that mean she has Somezheimers?
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

Re:I was nearly branded a

[daveschroeder]

I'm sure it feels great to be on the winning side in the election

I'm glad you know who I voted for.

Hint: it wasn't Bush.

but the end result of Iraq is going to be the end result of Viet Nam: casualties.

???

The end result of ANY military conflict is "casualties". Is that your only metric by which to judge?

400,000 Americans died in World War II. By your measure, that must be a catastrophe beyond all others.

But wait, it wasn't.

Perhaps "casualties" aren't the best measure of a military action? And, in the context of only talking about US casualties, ~1700 casualties for over two years, with the numbers barely climbing, is next to nothing considering the scope of this operation. Note: this does not diminish the contributions of the dead or disabled; I am merely stating a fact. Now, if you're not willing to accept ANY casualties for ANY reason, then, we're in fundamental disagreement here. Further, I am myself a former member of the military, and I have family members currently in the military, so I'm not speaking from a "comfortable distance" in that respect.

And the greatest damage is going to be done to the tender part between the ears.

Is this supposed to be some kind of deep statement? The only intellectual damage that will happen here is going to be from the wool that some choose to pull over their eyes.

Re:I was nearly branded a

[daveschroeder]

He implied I voted for Bush.

I didn't.

He's the one who made the error, not I, whether you agree with me, or the war, or not.

Paying off the Iraqis.

[Grendel Drago]

I don't know how accurate the population estimates at Wikipedia are, but they say about half that. So that'd be $7200 per citizen. In a country with a GDP/head of about $1600, that's rather significant.

Then again, I doubt those wacky acid-dripping, flesh-shredding, and people-disemboweling Ba'athists would have just taken the $7200 quietly. But it's a nice thought.

--grendel drago

The people of London....

[jotaeleemeese]

Certainly did not vote for this goverment. I believe Labour lost in the last general election in Londond.

But, this country as a whole is responsible, because put violent liars back in power.

In a democracy I can't find how people can be fully exhonerated from the failures of their representatives.

Re:The people of London....

[Dread_ed]

If you are responsible for this directly, and therefore the actions of those terrorists are reasonable and justified, you have only one option.

Go fucking kill yourself.

Since apparently you don't speak english,

[burndive]

fascist

terrorist

So you're saying the region was stable before us?

[zardo]

no- i disagree. Invading Iraq (no connections to 9/11, Al-Quada) was the worst thing to do. This administration losing focus on afghanistan and Bush telling the nation that he didn't care about Osama Bin Laden was the worst thing to do. Spreading our military so thin to fight a pointless war in Iraq that destabilized the entire region, and let Iraq become an open border den of terrorist activity, with extremists pouring in from nearly every country in the region was the worst thing to do.

The region was not stable to begin with. Our goal is stability, and stability is best achieved with a robust political system like democracy, first and foremost. One thing you leftists fail to realize is that terrorism can only exist at a high level of organization. There is a command and control structure, there has to be a source of funding for these terrorists, they need places to hide and not just in caves in the desert. If Saddam Hussein was still around he would most certainly have been sponsoring terrorists in Afghanistan. Afghanistan would have been the front, as it is Afghanistan is rolling along while Iraq takes most of the heat.

Our goal is democracy in Iraq. Our exit strategy is we will leave when democracy takes root and the Iraqi's start governing themselves. As far as I'm concerned, we've already achieved victory. We stuck around Germany long, long after we defeated them in WW2. I think your standards for victory are just too high, like you just expect more everybody to like us, that's your idea of victory. That's not a practical goal.

Not all Londoners are British.

[jotaeleemeese]

But we will stand shoulder to shoulder with any progressive people, British or otherwise, trying to find sane, real solutions to this sad nightmare.

Re:What will the EU do?

[AntoniusBloc]

[me]Comparing car acidents or smoking-related (not "caused", no causal link with tobacco has been established, only a correlation with excessive smoking) is to my mind a non sequitur

[...]

[me again]The war (and home security measures) has so far prevented another 9/11.

[you]I think your non-sequitur detector is only working sporadically....

You got me here. You're absolutely correct. I give myself a demerit.

[you]I think "berserk" part of the decision was the method by which they gathered support for the invasion: by deliberately lying to the public. It's the dishonesty, as much as anything else, that has cost the US leadership their moral legitimacy, and led to many of the problems in Iraq today. Few people (in Iraq or elsewhere) feel genuine loyalty to a bald faced liar.

Although I am not sure that the OP applied "berserk" in the way you interpret it, I do object to the "liar" charge. Just because information is later found not to be accurate does not mean it was originally a lie. I assume we are talking about how Bush "lied" about Saddam's weapons capabilities in order to justify going to war. If we are it is important to remember that before the war no one argued that Husein did not have such weapons or was aggressively seeking them -- even the French believed this -- the debate was over how to deal with them and with Husein. Now that no such weapons have been found does not mean that Bush or anyone else lied about believing that they were there.

In any case, I do not believe that this has led to "many of the problems in Iraq today." I feel that Iraq is moving in the right direction and in relative quick time too (did you think everything would be nice and happy two weeks after Saddam's statue fell? no one complained, or else no one remembers anyone complaining when it took several years after WWII for Germany and Japan to return to normal -- and these were both functioning societies prior to that war) It is remarkable how quickly Iraq was able to hold elections and also the degree to which most of Iraq (with a few notable exceptions - Baghdad and Falujah esp) has become a free and functioning society.

Whether Iraqis feel genuine loyalty to the US doesn't matter. Iraq is building its own new government and that is where the Iraqi people should (or should not) be placing their loyalties. Whether Iraqis think Bush lied or not should make no difference on what is going on over there right now.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[StarTux]

How? It diverted resources, instead of fighting overseas in places like London many will be fighting in Iraq (cold comfort for the Iraqi's).

No military on the streets.

[jotaeleemeese]

I don't know where you read that but is incorrect.

And I will tell you why.

The British do not treat terrorism as a military matter, but as an internal security one.

You guys in USia should take a clue about that.

mission accomplished

[Tesla Tank]

I'll bring you evidence number one.

Just look at the poor lady on the left. She's half scared to death! I don't care what the situation is, having a military personnel on a public transit is NOT good! What's that you say? We're trying to STOP terrorism? Because from where I'm standing, having a soldier with a huge fucking gun pointing at people is very intimidating. If this is how the government is reacting, I'd say the terrorist's mission is accomplished.

The Real Meaning of Stiff Upper-Lip

[Wile_E_Peyote]

After reading several of the reports and articles, my impression is; the British are a very strong people (probably from years of this kind of thing; not to mention WWII).

One of the reports I read had quotes from someone who was on the bus. He was bleeding from his ear. His comment was that others were much worse off.

Not to insult Americans (especially since I am one), but we don't seem to handle tragedy with nearly the grace or strength that our brothers and sisters across the ocean.

My hopes and best wishes go out to everyone over there...

Wait... I'm a little slow here, bear with me...

[Grendel Drago]

So, let me see if I understand you. If we fight terror, we lose. But if we ignore terror, or give into its demands, then we lose. So... what, exactly, is your strategy here?

Oh, I think the fight against terror could be fought in a much smarter way. But that doesn't mean it can't be done at all.

--grendel drago

ultimate troll

[pintomp3]

seems to me, terrorism is just trolling in the real world. responding to them only gives them more power (legitimacy, recruitment). want to win the "war" on terror? stop feeding the trolls..

Re:First Post

[Goffee71]

Nope, no one burning with fear in the South! I think lots of people have burning soles of feet through some extra walking but that seems about it!

Re:define terrorism

[interiot]

Boy, I walked into a landmine, didn't I?

In their book Political Terrorism, Schmidt and Youngman cited 109 different definitions of terrorism

Wikipedia tries to clarify the definition of "terrorism" somewhat, and notes that there are several things people commonly attribute to terrorism, but all of them have exceptions:

• The motive is political or religious (counter-examples: Psychiatric cases, and murders by organized criminals as a reminder to others that they should fall in line)
• The target is civilian (counter-example: bombing of USS Cole, any PLO attacks on Israeli military)
• The objective is to intimidate (counter-example: some examples of eco-terrorism)
• The perpetrator is non-governmental (counter-example: state terrorism)
• The act was unlawful (not even simply "violence or threat of violence" applies to all, counterexample cyber-terrorism)

Calling John Bull!

[GypC]

Are you still there?

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[aoeuid]

The name of the country to the south, Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, translates to The United Mexican States, dipshit.

Re:What will the EU do?

[roman_mir]

People don't like the idea of dozens of hundreds of people dying at once. It scares them. It shakes their being. - actually it is a rather exciting proposition.

What does circus mean?

[linzeal]

Chiefly British. An open circular place where several streets intersect.

Had to look it up, might save some other yanks some time.

Untrue.

[jotaeleemeese]

Rumours spread like wild fire ...

Re:This was innevitable

[NeedleSurfer]

Your chronology is out of alignment; 9/11 happened before the Iraq war, not the other way around. Seems like people like you are so intent on bashing America and the Bush administration that their surreptitious alteration of the facts is not below them.

Irak, according to even the CIA wasn't related to 9/11, the fact that you still link those two is pathetic.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[StarTux]

"Dou you really believe this???? You mean troops, oil, money, power, control, has nothing to do?

No, the real reason is the way we treat our women. Take a rest after such an intelectual effort!"

Don't normally argue with an AC, but think for a second here, maybe just a second which obviously will tax you....

Maybe I did not feel the need to mention oil over and over again? Yes its in the Wests interest to make sure the oil flows and oil is a big factor.

I have real world experience which surely 99% of Slashdot lacks? Having been to the Middle as well as having had Middle Eastern friends I obviously have knowledge you lack and many other especially here on Slash lack...

Really the only answer in the long term is compassion, something you see little of over here in the USA as most popular things seem hateful.

StarTux

Re:Stick to what you know boys and girls

[DrSoCold]

Exactly.

Do you know me? :-)

How do you kill an idea?

[jotaeleemeese]

Specially if you are giving loads of people (by killing them mind you, find the count of dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan) excuses to spouse the idea, no matter how stuupid it sounds as long as it offers the some degree of redress?

Re:now, normally I tend to be more balanced.

[Rick Genter]

"every time you bomb one of our cities, we reduce a major city of yours to molten glass. Still want to play?"

And who would "you" be?

The goals of the terrorists are familiar not alien

[Cafe Alpha]

I see a lot of posts here blaming the war in Iraq for terrorist attacks. I just found this anonymous letter posted on http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/ (Harry's place) that explains who is being targetted by whom and why so elequently that I don't dare add anything myself: ...I would be interested to know how deep your knowledge or understanding is of Islamism: i.e. political islam. We haven't spoken about politics for some time, so I don't know if you have read any articles or books about the history, philosophy and politics of Islamism at all. If you have, I apologise for what follows.

Perhaps you think that Islamism is the same thing as Islam. Perhaps you think that it is some form of national liberation struggle, or a reaction against imperialism or Bush's failure to sign up to Kyoto.

It is not.

Radical Islamism - in its most important strain - is a political doctrine which was developed principally by two arab thinkers in the first part of the 20th century - Qutb and Banna - who were deeply immersed, not in the culture of the middle east, but in the theoretical perspective of the European romantic movement. It is not an alien, exotic or even really an "oriental" doctrine. It is directly inspired by the same intellectual currents which gave rise to romantic nationalism in the 19th century, and fascism in the mid 20th century.

You might think that its main aim is to oppose military action in the middle east.

It is not.

Its main aim, explicitly, is to restore the Caliphate, abolished by Ataturk when modern Turkey was established. It is not an anti-imperialist movement. It is an imperialist [ http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/07 /05/left_conservatism.php ] movement, yearning for an imagined golden age which it hopes to recreate.

Qutb saw the primary enemy, not as the foreign policy of Western states, but as Modernity: and in particular materialism, liberalism, and democracy. This is the primary reason that London has been bombed: not because it has "attacked muslims" but because they fear that materialism, liberalism and democracy are damaging to the values which Islamists hope to promore: piety and submission to the will of god.

The radical Islamists are not fighting a realisable campaign, in the same sense that the Irish nationalists were. They do not want a Caliphate in the sense that the IRA wanted a united and independent Ireland. They are fighting a battle against the corrupting forces of modernity for the souls of all muslims. Their principal enemies are principally "apostate" muslims, not you or I.

Why do you think a bomb went off in Edgware Road?

Do you think that it was an accident that the home to London's liberal, westernised Arab muslims was targetted?

Many western "liberals" have simply projected their own concerns about US policy onto the radical Islamists. That is not fair to them: they do NOT share your concerns, but have ones of their own which you would do well to respect. They are not fools or mindless religious fanatics: they are philosophers. You should listen, in particular, to what radical Islamists say, and not what you think they ought to be saying.

Islamist movements have been strong, and growing stronger, in the middle east since the 1950s. Banna established the Muslim Brotherhood which was brutally oppressed by Nasser. The survivors fled to Saudi, where in 1961, they established the Islamic University, in Medina. There they developed the Islamist analysis. That generation taught young, unemployed, hopeless Saudi men who went off to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechenia. Those men returned and turned their sites from the "near enemy" - the Saudi royal family who were tainted by unislamic values - to the "far enemy": the west, capitalism, and in particular the Unit

Bush, Not Kerry

[dannytaggart]

When asked "Can we win?" the war on terror, Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are -- less acceptable in parts of the world."

- NY Daily News

Re:Stop igoring history, dipshits...

[Eccles]

Take a look at the first WTC bombing. I don't recall anything in particular the US was doing, other than being a world economic leader.

Supporting Israel. Ramzi Yousef, the key planner of the bombings, said that the U.S.'s support for Israel was his motivation.

I say glaze the whole fucking middle east over with some tactical nukes.

Ramzi Yousef would have done the same to the U.S. if he could have. You sound pretty similar to him.

France did it

[lupa1420]

Slashdot poll

How long before a US Congressman claims that Olympics-2006-loser France was a sponsor of the London bombings?

12 hours

24 hours

48 hours

As soon as he finishes off that super-size serving of Freedom Fries

After President Bush identifies France as part of the revised axis of evil

Re:France did it

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

Word is that if that happens, France will retaliate by NOT renaming "American Cheese"...

Re:France did it

[yaweh]

you obviously dont know anything. youre just a red neck mouth piece, thats really sad.

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[the_mad_poster]

You got proof that the reason "they" are after us is about religious differences?

In other words, given your apparent position, you can now quote, directly, the majority of known terrorist leaders giving an ironclad statement that they have perpetrated X Y and Z attacks simply over religious intolerance? Right?

Re:Propaganda

[ckaminski]

Personally, I think he was pissed we didn't finish the job in '91 after liberating Kuwait, and he wanted to goad us into doing it...

And personally, I think we let him... :-/

How many died?

[gorrepati]

After nearly 2200 posts I fail to see one post which talks about how many died in IRAQ. What you have seen here, happens almost daily in IRAQ. No newsagency gives a damn, yeah it does appear somewhere in the 2nd page. And when it happens in some western country, all the news agencies rally for a common cause. I'm not political and not against anybody. But realize this, after 1 year of invasion in IRAQ, some 100,000 people died. Yes, you could have read about it, but didnt care all that much. Talk about how many people died rather than how many brits, americans or iraqis died.

Explain yourself.

[Grendel Drago]

Society? Society does not condone, all societies have minorities that are fanatics.

Then could you be so kind as to explain why you feel comfortable pinning the responsibility for various terrible acts that governments performed on their citizens, and those citizens' descendants.

Of course no society is composed of 100% animals. No one was saying that. You're attacking a strawman. What has been said is that the culture which (we seem pretty confident) perpetrated these attacks is savage, and grotesque, and sick.

See, what bothers me about honor killings more than the fact that they happen is the fact that they generally go unpunished. If society fails to condemn these acts, if the perpetrators can flaunt their barbarity without fear of reprisal or justice, then the society that permits these acts is at fault. So we can call it a fucking animal culture.

Which, incidentally, is why the government's response to news of torture bothers me far more than a few bad seeds on the night shift. That ain't us---at least, that ain't who we're supposed to be, and if we don't take action, then we've all got blood on our hands.

Anyway, my experiences with knowing Muslim folks (one sample point here, so it's not meaningful beyond anecdotal evidence) gave me the impression that he was polite, fastidiously clean, and disappointed that he couldn't go to his parents' country because it had become a dictatorship.

The world was horrified when earlier US Society seemed to condone hangiing black men from trees, and raping black women.

Really? Where? Weren't they kind of busy with lynching and raping of their own?

--grendel drago

Re:Fucking Animals

[1ucius]

I respectively disagree. Terrorism is done partly for personal gain (control territory), partly to intimidate those who would oppose them (e.g., Spain), and part because they're at war with the world and can.

Why don't they use poison fragmentation?

[linzeal]

I never understood why terrorists do not use poison fragmententation so that the slightest injury kills a person. Is it that hard to make?

Re:Why don't they use poison fragmentation?

[DG]

Having never attempted to create a poison frag bomb, and so not really being up on the availibility and lethality of commonly availible poisons, I wouldn't know for sure.... but there are bound to be similarities to chemical weapons, and I do know a fair amount about those, thanks to the army.

There exist agents that are spectacularly lethal, where pinhead sized droplets can kill in minutes after exposure to the skin. Some of the nerve agents out there are really terrifying.

And there are undoubtably poisons that may not be as immediately lethal as military-grade nerve agents, but would do the job in a homemade device, especially if we can deliver direct to the bloodstream (via a wound) rather than needing through-skin absorbsion.

(Quick trivia point - if your agent evaporates or otherwise breaks down faster than the rate of through-skin absorbsion, it won't work. This is a big part of why modern chemical weapons have such ridiculous toxicity. It's not enough to bring the target in contact with the agent; the agent must be delivered in sufficiant quantity to be lethal (or at least incapactating) and absorbsion rate vs dispersion/decomposition rate is a big part of that)

So if we stick a vial of some agent in with our bomb, we can count on that volume of agent being blasted more or less uniformly away from the centre of the blast, which means that the volume of agent per volume of space is going to follow an inverse cube relationship with the distance away from the centre of the blast (at least initially) with a skew towards a slightly denser than normal distribution closer to the blast point as agent that was blasted "up" falls back to earth.

Even with the hyper-lethal military grade stuff, you wind up needing a LARGE volume of agent if you want to deliver a lethal dose at the edge of the blast area. If your agent of choice is less lethal, the amount of agent required goes up accordingly. Volume affects dispersal/decomposition as well - a small volume is likely to be dispersed as a fine mist, which is going to evapourate or break down quicker than large droplets.

All this tends to require larger volumes in order to make the agent effective at all.

Plus you still deal with masking effects. Those close to the blast will tend to shield those behind them, such that somebody two or three ranks behind the blast may not come into contact with any agent at all. You kill those in the first rank - but blast and/or fragmentation would have done for them anyway.

So you don't really make the device all that much more lethal, but you DO make it bulkier and heavier. You also make assembly and transport much more difficult. Most homemade explosives tend to be unstable enough as it is (many would-be terrorists take themselves out with unintended premature detonation); to have the device full of something lethal that could potentially leak or spill while on route does nothing for your delivery rate.

The people who you WOULD impact the most would be rescue and cleanup crews. Assuming a reasonably persistant agent and suitable density, rescue crews or first-aiders who move to the centre of the blast will put themselves in contact with the agent, and you might get a couple of them before they wised up - again, assuming sufficiant volume.

If this is starting to sound like you need *gallons* of agent in order to be able to do anything, then you're getting the picture. I've always considered the basic unit of chemical weapons volume to carry out a reasonable terrorist-sized strike as the "tanker truck".

Even in military use, the primary use of a chemical strike were its second-order effects, not its immediate lethality. A chemical strike forces all those in the theatre to climb into their bunny suits and gask masks. From personal experience, this is a SERIOUS pain in the ass - it's hot, uncomfortable, you can't see, talk, or breathe as well, simple things like eating and defecating become major operations, and the area struck is off limits until a chemical r

Well said!

[lysium]

Just because you're not under attack on home ground and don't hear people running and screaming is no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.

So ya think Bush prevented attacks, do ya? Well, I have a rock here that keeps tigers away. Look around, do you see any tigers nearby?

Doesn't it work good?

Now who's ignorant of history?

[GPS Pilot]

If we started with non-oil producers in greater need, people actually would believe that was what we were doing.

Um, we did. The invasion of Afghanistan came before the Iraq campaign. Afghanistan is a much poorer country than Iraq, and has no petroleum to speak of.

Re:Now who's ignorant of history?

[Concern]

We declared Afghanistan was a response to 9/11, which it largely was, so it is incorrect to bring it up over a discussion about whether Iraq can be justified as a war for humanitarian purposes.

For the record, "not having oil" is not the criteria for determing what was a humanitarian mission. Having a humanitarian crisis is. And although Afghanistan was significantly worse than Iraq as far as human rights are concerned, there were mass amputations in Sierra Leone, for instance... neither nation compares to half a dozen nations in Africa which had to be passed on the way. Nobody tried to sell us that story with Afghanistan, though. We were after Osama and we said so.

Anyway, daveschroeder just all but admitted oil is a major factor in Iraq. Why continue to argue?

Do you ever wonder if we had just stayed focused there, instead of splitting our resources, could we have caught him by now?

I mean, the easy way out is to say, no, we wouldn't have, but you have to admit, it's possible.

Re:Now who's ignorant of history?

[Concern]

We've engaged in a number of humanitarian military missions over the years. Iraq is not one of them. Trying to pass it off that way is the crudest deception.

Isn't OBL believed by many or most to be in Pakistan? If this is the case, a significantly greater effort in Afghanistan would not "get him". Isn't finding him in Pakistan much more dependent on the cooperation of the Pakistani government and local military and other leaders, than it is on the size and "dedication" of the American forces?

We were always much more likely to catch OBL with intelligence than with the military. Intelligence assets are precious and rare. When you divert a majority of your Arabic and Persian speakers from Afghanistan and OBL to Iraq... the result is obvious to you, I hope.

Re:Now who's ignorant of history?

[PhreakOfTime]

no oil to speak of? Maybe, but there sure is a hell of a need to get that oil pipeline through the country to get the oil from the caspian sea to market faster. As well as NG. The US Dept of Energy had predicted afghanitan to surpass venezuala in oil production by 2015. Just because its your opinion that there is no oil to speak of, doesnt mean it is a fact that there is no oil to speak of... you would do well to learn that distinction

"In January 1998, the Taliban signed an agreement that would allow a proposed 890-mile, $2-billion, 1.9-billion-cubic-feet-per-day natural gas pipeline project led by Unocal to proceed."

http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html

However, BP, aka BRITISH PETROLEUM had other ideas...

It's up to you, be ignorant and open your mouth without thinking, or make damn sure what your about to say is factual before you say it. Ive had it with this bullshit! All you do is spew out some sentence you heard someone else say(FOX news) and think because you saw it on T.V. it has some kind of authority.

Re:Now who's ignorant of history?

[HyperTiger]

Afghanistan may not have oil in the country itself, but it is the site for the oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea, which it borders. Running the pipeline through Iran or Russia didn't seem feasable. In 1998 Centgas advised Congress that it could not get oil out from the Caspian until Afghanistan had a regime change. http://thedebate.org/thedebate/afghanistan.asp http://www.keweenawnow.com/news/afghanistan_02_03/ afghanistan_02_03_p_1.htm http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html

Re:The death of white people is always tragic

[gorrepati]

Well nobody supports Saddam. But consider this, how does it feel when a local cop arrests you, puts you in jail(for some mistake not yours for 2 days vs some terrorist from another country kidnapping you. By the way, we can also talk about US sanctions on iraq, after the gulf war, which helped 1 in 3 children die in iraq, for the lack of medicines, all through the 90's.

Re:And the chickens come home to roost

[GypC]

I hope you die soon. And painfully.

Re:You have to learn history before you can ignore

[mr100percent]

The US government gave over USD$10 Billion to Israel last year, which is one third of the entire US Foreign Aid Budget. That surprises me, since Israel is the 16th wealthiest country in the world, and its per capita income is higher than Spain or any country in the Middle East (even Saudi Arabia). There's more; US$1 Billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The tax-deductable status does not exist when donating to any other country. Source

How much does the US give to Egypt? USD$1.3 Billion in military aid, and an average of $815 Million a year in economic assistance. That's the Lion's share of aid to the rest of the middle east.

How can you bring religion into this? The Israeli-Palestinian issue is a political struggle, though it has religious overtones. If you're going to start pointing fingers, have you read any right-wing Israeli press? There are Jewish extremists who claim that since they are the "chosen people of God" that they have the right to do as they wish. That's not "looking down on us," as you claim? Some settlers are saying it's OK to kill as many non-Jews as necessary if it protects even one Jew.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Jeremi]

I assume we are talking about how Bush "lied" about Saddam's weapons capabilities in order to justify going to war. If we are it is important to remember that before the war no one argued that Husein did not have such weapons or was aggressively seeking them

In particular, I was referring to this -- the fact that the US government was deliberately "fixing the facts around the policy", and was pretending to act in good faith when in fact the invasion was a foregone conclusion. This was apparent at the time, to anyone who chose to look, and it is documented fact now.

Whether Iraqis think Bush lied or not should make no difference on what is going on over there right now

I wasn't referring to the Iraqis in particular (although I think the US's legitimacy, or lack thereof, does play a significant role there), but to the world at large. If the US had been able and willing to make an honest, persuasive case for an invasion, they might have been able to gain significant support from other countries (comparable, say, to the amount of support Bush's father received in the first Iraq War). With the full support (and even more importantly, the nation-building expertise) of the UN and other countries, the post-Hussein transition could have gone more smoothly, without the mass looting and chaos, and costly mistakes (like disbanding the Iraqi army) might have been avoided. In this scenario, the insurgency might never have taken root, and the US would be in a position to triumphantly leave a peaceful Iraq today. But because of the Bush Administration's dishonesty and arrogant "we know best and fuck you if you disagree" attitude, they got only half-hearted token support at best. That leaves us in the position we are in today -- alone and paralyzed in an Iraq that is spinning out of control.

It is remarkable how quickly Iraq was able to hold elections and also the degree to which most of Iraq (with a few notable exceptions - Baghdad and Falujah esp) has become a free and functioning society

When that society can function without the presence of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and a billion dollars a week in American tax money propping it up, then I'll be convinced. At the moment it looks like it is on life support.

Re:The death of white people is always tragic

[KD5YPT]

Dude... it's called human nature. Human nature always value lives in the following sequence.
1. Our own (or our children)
2. Our close family members
3. Our family members in general.
4. Those similar to us (in race/ideology/etc).
5... ... ...
X. Others.

Sure, tens of thousands of innocent orphans should receive some sympathy. But the fact that it's a war and they're, however unfortunate, an inevitable result of having a war (their parents being associate with a group that has a reputation of harming the innocent doesn't exactly help their case).

P.S. I'm not white, but I'm more sympathetic to them brits then to them orphans in Iraq.

Re:Propaganda

[That's Unpossible!]

I don't believe Bin Laden is one of them. If he was, how could he have worked with the CIA in the russian war in afghanistan?

The same way enemies have worked together for millenium to defeat more-hated enemies.

I also think that any of us who claim to know what motivates Bin Laden is a little too confidant. All I meant to say with my post is that we don't know that what he says is true, and to accept it cart blanche is foolish as best, and dangerous at worst.

All I need to know about islamofascists like bin Laden is that they want to kill innocent people, and they do kill innocent people, for their religious reasons. As much as anyone may hate Bush and the current administration, I really doubt anyone believes we (America in general) want to kill innocent people. Yes, innocent people died in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and will continue to do so. But compare it to past wars, and you will see the military has tried to (and succeeded at) limit civilian casualties as they attack enemies.

I also beleive that Al Queda can not function without at least some support from broad Muslum communities, this support is rarly based on hatred of everthing western, but rather a desire to have western nations change thier foreign policy. If this support evaporates, then the movment looses it's ability to oporate...

Sadly, it only takes a very few set of radicals to fund and carry out extreme terrorism. As weapons become more dangerous and easy to get, the only thing you can do is try to locate terrorists and kill them, as well as to promote freedom in the countries that spawn terrorists, to give what would be future terrorists, some hope.

The fact is the islamofascists are brainwashed by religion, and it is easier to brainwash people with religion when they have no hope and live in horrible conditions. Religion prays on the ignorant. (Pun intended. ;)

(I too am non-religous, and I used to consider myself a centerest, but I feel the center has shifted very far to the right lately)

Ummm. The center hasn't shifted at all, that's why they call it the center. ;-) However, you may find that the administration and its opponents have shifted to the edges. Sadly, I agree. However, I also feel that the majority in America are in the center. But as fucked up as our political/voting system is in this country, they won't come out to vote in large numbers until major, radical changes are made to improve our system.

Re:Propaganda

[TamMan2000]

You haven't stated what you believe his TRUE ulterior motives are.

I claim not to know, only to know that all who claim to know are overconfidant in their own knowledge. (Rumsfeldian engough for ya ?:)

I don't know what makes you tick, you don't know what makes me tick... We don't know what makes him tick. We can have insights and suspicions, but I am very sceptical of any claims anyone makes as to knowledge of the motivations of another human.

Re:This was innevitable

[tweek]

I don't think the majority of the Western world does either. I honestly think that this Iraq thing is just the result of a man who REALLY believes that this is the solution to the Middle East.

I personally think we should ALL get the hell out of the middle east and let them blow themselves up if that's what they want to do.

There are asshole dictators all over the world and Iraq was the first we went after? The ONLY reason that was possible is because of 9/11. People were afraid of "them Muslims".

We have no business in building nations. It's failed us in the past and it will continue to fail us.

You are most likey a hypacrit

[Halvy]

After all chances are you will resourt to violence under the proper circumstances.

For every passage of the Bible someone quotes that claims God does not want people to use violence, there are 2 that show it is ok.

Me? My favorate one covers them all: "Everything is possible with God". (you get that.. EVERYTHING!!).

And oh yea, one other seldom used verse that the jewish-mafia doesn't like: "Anything you do is good, if you don't have guilt from its results..". Of course the verse that compliments it is: "If you do something that is ok by God, but YOU feel guilty.. then it IS a sin..".

I'm paraphrasing of course, but i'm sure you the get idea, and have heard similar verses before.

Regardless these action yesterday in London reek of jews-n-bush, inc... because Big-Al-Qaeda has absolutely NO interest in hurting people who are against the iraq invation (Brits).

However I just got word that a (jew leader, netanyahu) was suppose to be using the tube (rails) yesterday, and the jews *warned* him not to go there... VERRRRY suspicious..

False choice

[mcc]

The Islamists have the same goals as Hitler -- world domination with them in charge.

I couldn't disagree more. I'd even suggest quite the opposite. The rallying cry of terrorist leaders, the method they use to recruit, is assert that the Western world, the US in particular, is out for world domination.

I don't... um... I don't see how these two statements are in disagreement.

It seems to me like the islamists have the goal of world domination, and their rallying cry-- the method they use to recruit-- is to assert that the western world, the US in particular, has the goal of world domination.

It seems to me like you're falling into the exact same lie as George W. Bush-- i.e., assuming that whoever is on the other side from the "bad guy" must therefore be the "good guy".

I don't see a "good guy" in this situation. I just kind of see here two bad guys that have divided the world in two, and are holding power in their halves by pointing at the other bad guy and yelling "See?? I have to protect you from HIM!!!"

Re:Paging Russian/Korean Special Forces!

[Emperor Shaddam IV]

"Airport searches will no longer be done on randomly selected persons. These searches will be biased against Middle Easterners."

Hmmm, that will work great to stop terriorism from the IRA and from anti-US government Americans like Timothy McVeigh, won't it?

Re:What will the EU do?

[Citizen of Earth]

True, but how many of their relatives can one kill before they get involved?

I think this question is orders of magnitude more relevant to the terrorists in Iraq than to the US. The Iraqi civilians are starting to come to this realization about who their real enemies are. They may even be having some stressful thoughts about what would happen to them if the US were to pull out tomorrow.

Re:But were these "terrorists"

[KD5YPT]

Um... blowing up buses in Israel IS considered terrorism (most of the news I heard said that). It's just that it happened so often there, that one of the following happened.
1. Growing apathy, there's only so much sorrow one can feel for anyone.
2. Numb, from exposing to all those horrific act. When you see enough of them, you get used to seeing in (not a good thing... but it happens).
3. Lack of connection, when you have no close ties there, No. 1 sets in very quickly.

My 2 pence...

[jjeffrey]

Pretty much anything I say here will be rightly marked redundant - it's all been said above, but as a British citizen I feel I want to publish my view somewhere.

I went through a couple of the affected stations on Tuesday, almost exactly 48 hours before the bombs went off. I can tell you from first hand experience that there is no-one on the tube in London at that time that deserves to be hurt, and also that there are a lot of muslims using the tube in London.

There are people reading the paper, looking at a book, listening to an iPod, or staring out a window. They are human, and they are innocent.

We stood by our friends the US, and for that we have paid. If we have to, we will stand by the US again.

Anyone that thinks that blowing us up will change our minds does not understand who we are. This will not change us. This will not terrorise us. World war 2 did not beat us. The IRA bombing us for years did not break us.

We will do three things. We will clear up. We will grieve quietly, and then we will carry on, the same as before. They gain nothing, and they certainly do not terrorise us.

Thanks very much to everyone that has posted friendly messages, I'm sure I can speak for the majority of British /. readers when I say they are appreciated.

I'll finish with a quote from BBC news - it's paraphrased I'm afraid, but it's this: "The emergency services exuded an air of control and professionalism that sucked the terror from terrorism". I think in Britain today we can be very proud, of all our countrymen in London, and especially of our Emergency services. I hope that you folks abroad will agree.

Re:My 2 pence...

[KD5YPT]

Very well said. It's nice to hear words like this on the net, it gives people hope. I seriously don't think anyone believe any of them deserves this, to die simply because of their belief.

P.S. I wish you good health, and wish your great nation to have a speedy recovery.

Re:EAT UP ALL THAT ELITE PROPAGANDA, BOYS!

[Fizzog]

"Money does not equate to a cure for anything."

Very true.

But lack of money certainly doesn't either.

The difference, silly.

[Grendel Drago]

If that's the definition you could also lump in the French resistance and other underground groups as terrorists during WWII.

Well, yeah. They were fighting to overthrow a government, weren't they? But it was a bad government, an astonishingly bad one. Fighting to overthrow a democracy and impose a theocratic dictatorship is considerably less admirable.

--grendel drago

detonated by cell phone

[ghukov]

I heard they shut down the cell phone network because the bombs were detonated by cell.

Re:Note to the "coalition"

[DerProfi]

I just sewed a button on my favorite Hawaiian shirt last week, and inshallah-malamadingdong I look forward to reaping a multitude of buttons!

Iraq == the new Al Queda training camp

[KenSeymour]

The United States military has closed the training camps in Afghanistan. In they have also opened one big training camp in Iraq.
So Jihadis can go to Iraq and learn how to fight against a large army in an urban context.

As to the Jihadis being killed in droves every day, I suppose that means we will eventually run out of them, right?
Some of us are old enough to remember the US government when they kept saying how many viet cong they had killed.
It eventually exceeded the population of North Vietnam. They used to call it "the credability gap."
How many years will the insurgency be "in their last throes?"

If and when the US military or Iraqi army subdue the insurgency, the battle-hardend remainder of the Jihadis will move on to the next country.

I'm glad you are so confident that the President's Iraq policy will produce a safer world.
There are a sizeable number of Americans that doubt that.

Before the war was started, there were those who would have liked to continued the weapons inspections and international pressure to contain Saddam Hussein.
Of course, now we don't have that option. The American people only have two choices:

1) Keep supporting the administration and hope they will in fact get it under control someday.
2) Stop going down what more and more people believe is a failed policy.

Since we can't seem to keep the Jihadis from entering Iraq whenever they feel like it, I will assume they will leave whenever they feel like
it and travel on to the next battleground.
Meanwhile, we do not have enough troops left over to provide creditable military option to deal with growing nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran.

Re:6? 7? 865789865 explosions? CNN says 4.

[Loonacy]

And CNN is always right.

Re:What will the EU do?

[delus10n0]

Hey, it worked for Clinton. Apparently most of the USA doesn't care if their president lies to them, and admits to it.

I call bullshit

[EccentricAnomaly]

maybe our support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip? we have given the Israeli's millions of dollars AND weapons and aircraft. what have we given the people whos land we took to give to them? several hundred thousand dollars and no protection from a military who has killed thousands of palistinian children.

America supports Israel, because Israel's enemies want to exterminate every last living Jew. (At least that's what their leaders say, and state run papers in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, etc. say). This policy was led by the US's post WWII leadership which had served in the war and saw first hand some horrible things.

Israel does a lot of nasty things, but without US support they'd all be slaughtered in a much more nasty way than anything that's happening to the Palestinians. The only possibly moral thing for the US to do is to protect Israel at the same time while trying to negotiate for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

think about it - if 10 or 20 years ago an american hellicopter came in and blew up your dad or your uncle or your brother or your friend you'd be pissed wouldn't you. Lucky for you, you're American. You will most likely never have to experience someone coming onto your soil and accidentally killing your friends and/or family because they had to shove their nose where it didnt belong.

Fact is we should have invaded Afghanistan years before 9/11. We should have stopped the Taleban -- even though many innocents would die in such a war -- because they were evil, and the US has an ideological obligation to fight such fights.

The US was attacked not because we stood up and _tried_ to do the right thing in helping Israel. We were attacked because we ignored so many evil things because of economic expedience (supporting the Shah in Iran, allowing the Taleban to thrive, supporting the Saudis,etc, etc). Our policy was the realpolitck mantra of stability and commerce over all and justice be damned to fairy tales. Israel was the one exception to that policy (it is economically expedient to criticize Israel and support Iran, ala the policies of France and Germany -- The US only supports Israel for ideological reasons.).

I'm not saying that they are right in what they do . All I'm saying is that perhaps we should pick the stick from our own eye before we attempt to pick the splinter from theirs.

We stood up to a bully and tried to protect the little guy. We made mistakes, but our intentions were laudable. If you forget about the techniques employed by these 'freedom fighters' and look at their goals and motivations you see that we should be trying to stop them even if their tactics were in accord with the Geneva conventions.

To be truly British

[gzunk]

Is NOT to move terrorism up to first priority at the G8 conference. It's to continue as if nothing had happened. Stiff upper lip and all that.

Africa is still there, people are still dying through poverty. Global Warming is still here and still happening. We just need to continue exactly as we were before.

Don't know if you've seen the Carry on Films, but Carry on up the Khyber has a good scene where the Brits are having dinner while being shelled and shot at. That's the sort of response I'd like to see.

Re:To be truly British

[Hungry Student]

That's the sort of response you are seeing.

London and londoners are well-accustomed to the threat of terrorism, people who live here refuse to let it invade or dictate their lives, hence why every bus I saw on the way home was packed and why a bus driver interviewed on the radio will be back in his seat tomorrow morning.

Ken Livingstone, the Mayor or London, released an excellent statement this morning which, in my opinion, well articulated the feeling in Britain and in London. Londoners have never lived in fear of terrorism, if they did, nobody would ever use the tube. This will do nothing, if the tube were open tomorrow morning, I'd take it to work and I know hundreds who would do the same.

Re:You have to learn history before you can ignore

[mr100percent]

I never said Syria was that much in the right. Syria plays the realpolitik game pretty well. They invaded Lebanon mainly to crush the Palestinians, people supposedly on their side, because President Asad was worried they would start a war with Israel and drag Syria in as well. It's like the US supporting terrorist organizations like the Mujahideen-E-Khalq which attacks Iran and civillians, while blasting Iran for supporting other terrorist groups that do the same.

MOD parent up

[j_w_d]

Just when I don't have moderator points. I would give you an "Insightful."

Some of what you say is biased, but probably no more than debate tactics would ask in replying to the stupidity of the grandparent post. Islam is no more piratical than Christianity or Buddhism, and no religion that seeks converts looks for anything less than the removal of the cultural bases of the people it converts. Religions purport to offer the "truth" or the "good" or the "right." As such they are all inherently destructive to the cultures they proseltize to. Just keep this in perspective Bush seems to be unable to keep religion out of his comments and just recently Rice was quoted as saying that US would be supporting _missionary_ efforts in Africa to oppose Islamic influence there.

To my mind there is no good religion.

Re:You have to learn history before you can ignore

[WhiplashII]

So... US giving money is bad? Arab countries are worse off after receiving the $1.3B, because the $10B is somehow negative to them?

Your right, it is political - but the politics are based primarily on religion. How many Isrealies want to see Americans dead? How many Arabs want to see Americans dead? All I was saying is that there is a positive corellation between the "hate americans" population ratio and the amount of funding received. Is that really surprising?

For example, why does Egypt get so much aid? (Well, apart from the fact that they need it more than Jordan, for example). Compare them to Iran - really the only difference I know of is that Egyptians have a lower "lets kill americans" population percentage.

Why do people think that Americans should give support to people that hate them? Don't people understand that giving people charity and money tends to make them dependant on you (and therefore perversely hate you more)?

Really, I think if Iraq becomes a free country, so that Iraqis can become rich through trade with the US - the world will be a much better place in 20-40 years.

Israel's surroundings.

[Grendel Drago]

Mainly because it's such a good piece of propaganda that can be used to distract the people of those countries from the fact that their own governments kinda suck.

No, really---Israel is surrounded by dictatorships, theocracies and kleptocracies. The way those despots keep their people unified and not revolting is by blaming it all on the Jews.

When the Arab-Israeli war broke out, the Arab nations expelled their Jews. Israel took them in. When Israel expelled their Arabs, they wound up becoming refugees for three generations because Jordan, Syria and Egypt didn't want them. Does that seem right to you?

--grendel drago

Care to back that up?

[Gorimek]

The perpetrators of the London bombings, the Madrid bombing, the Istanbul bombing, the Bali bombing, and the 9/11 attacks aren't interested in "humanitarian work" or in "progress". They are interested in defeating the West and putting it under fundamentalist Islamic rule. They have never made any secret of it.

Where do you get that from?

The statements I've seen from Bin Laden has only dealt with the (perceieved) need to repel Jewish and Christian invaders of Muslim lands, such as Palestine, Chechnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and others.

That world view and agenda has a lot of problems of course, but it's very far from any desire to rule America, that you claim they have "never made any secret of". So where are the public and unambigous statements to that effect?

Re:now, normally I tend to be more balanced.

[Machine9]

thought I've since calmed down after venting and no longer support my earlier idea, I felt I owed you a reply.

"you" in this case can means terrorists and "yours" is used to euphemistically refer to any city in a country in the middle east, selected arbitrarily, and hopefully boasting a goodly supply of innocents.

In essence if you can't beat em your way, beat em their way, only better.

But as I said, I took a deep breath, had a walk, and am no longer genocidal. :)

Oh, save it. Only cowards cry Troll.

[Fantastic Lad]

Gosh, trolling whilst tens of innocent people have lost their lives and hundreds more are hospitalised in various states of carnage.

You, sir, have reached a new low.

A new low, eh? Are you implying that this is not the first time you have read my posts? If this is the case, (and if you likewise consider my past posting to have been previously 'new' lows), then it is probable that you will have also noted a common thread of thinking among my posts.

A 'Troll' post, if I understand that much over-used term correctly, is one designed to deliberately ruffle feathers for the sake of ruffling feathers regardless of the actual beliefs of the poster.

Sorry, chum, but my posts happen to reflect my real views and concerns as best as I am able to present them. If they ruffle feathers, then that has more to do with the baggage of the reader than it does with me. --You may not happen to hold the same views I do, but I wouldn't be cowardly enough to call the things you post 'Trolls' if they honestly express your opinions.

And yes, people dying in bomb blasts is a terrible thing. I agree! --But I notice that nobody seems to care very much or get all huffy and Politically Correct on my ass when 95% of those bomb blasts happen to be killing civilians who aren't white.

-FL

This probably isn't the best time for jokes but...

[The Woodworker]

I'm a US citizen.

(Mod -5 for trolling)

Now, for the replies, here's the CSS style...

Put reply here.

Except 2 out of 3 quote are from the Old Testament

[gzunk]

Which are not the teachings of Christ. Note that the only one which is New Testament - Ephesians - doesn't actually tell you to kill anyone, it just says that if you're bad you won't go to heaven.

What on earth?

[mcc]

Poverty doesn't "just happen". The United States could be poverty-stricken, too, if it did. Poverty comes from people who can't or won't take care of themselves.

Uh... wow.

Have you ever heard of the great depression?

The U.S. was poverty-stricken, at one time, when movement toward urban and industrial of modes of society began to leave large quantities of people behind. The U.S. eventually became poverty-stricken to the point of being absolute crisis, in one single decade-long event that had so many disparate causes that "it just happened" is as good an explanation as any.

In the aftermath of this event, one could make an extremely compelling argument that the reason the U.S. isn't poverty-stricken now is that we're artificially removing poverty through the use of startlingly wasteful welfare and farming subsidy programs. Which hardly represents self-reliance.

America has avoided being poverty-stricken today despite the widespread presence of people who can't or won't take care of themselves. There are many nations that are poverty-stricken today despite no lack of people who are willing to take care of themselves at far greater cost than any american pays today.

Let's try this again.

[Grendel Drago]

Here, we have the 9/11 commission's report, quoted by some guy with an axe to grind.

"[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

It was conveniently quoted on that particular site, which was the first thing I Googled. Are you now saying that the 9/11 commission is biased, makes stuff up, etc.?

--grendel drago

Re:Let's try this again.

[Capt James McCarthy]

So you expect an administration to admit to letting the person responsible for the 9/11 attacks go?

In sympathy

[denissmith]

As a New Yorker, I remember the outpouring of sympathy when we were the victims of an attack. I am somewhat surprized by the lack of such expression here. Whatever your political views ( I happen to be an anti-war pacifist with great sympathy for Afghanis, Iraqis, and even Guantanameros) I think we ought reflect on the lives literally shattered by this act of war - and all acts of war.

Re:Propaganda

[TamMan2000]

All I need to know about islamofascists like bin Laden is that they want to kill innocent people, and they do kill innocent people, for their religious reasons.

I don't know that I have answers for all of the questions I am about to ask, but, I am just gonna float a few for us to think about.

Who is a more legitimate target?
A) a conscript in the army of a dictatorship (with bad foreign policy).
B) a voter in a country with representative government and bad foreign policy.

Initially I leaned toward A, but then the the more I thought about it, I started thinking B. B is esentially a desision maker, and A is order taker, a messenger, if you will... Though the message may be a bullet, the soldier is not the source of the bullet, he just delivers the bullet, the source is the government, and in representative governed nations, the government is of the people for the people and by the people... The people are self governed... The people are the source of the foreign policy, and the bullet.

So while I agree completly that the Taliban soldiers were legitimate targets, I am less sure that, morally, the Iraqi army was a more legitimate target than the US civilian.

I guess ultimatly the questions are
Where the victims in the towers truly inocent?
and did the islamofacists kill inocents, or their percieved oppressors?

Terrorists aren't the bad guys, eh?

[kylef]

I've read history, thank you very much.

Do you really be that terrorist are the "bad guy" that decides to kill random people? ... Terrorist don't act randomly and kill people without a reason, why would they?

Yes, they are the "bad guys." Killing random people is, in fact, *precisely* what terrorists do. The entire goal of terrorism is to strike fear in the minds of a population so that they do not know where or when another attack may come, or who may be targeted. The lack of an obvious target is precisely what supposedly makes it effective.

The fundamental difference between terrorists and westerners is that westerners practice a morality which dictates that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This morality directly conflicts with the belief system espoused by Fundamentalist Islam. That is the heart of the issue. The "precipitating historical injustices" which you think have led directly to terrorist attacks (such as deployed troops in the Holy Land, or US/EU support of the Israeli government), are simply rallying cries for a Jihad launched long ago due to these underlying philosophical differences. And if you don't see that, then you need to brush up on the history of Fundamentalist Islamic terrorism.

They're not stupid.

They are, in fact, incredibly stupid if they think their tactics will work to coerce ANY policy change if I (and others who believe strongly in Western ideals) have anything to say about it. Luckily, because I live in a democracy, I do have something to say about it, and I have done precisely that in 2002 and 2004.

Re:Terrorists aren't the bad guys, eh?

[rob.wolfe]

They are, in fact, incredibly stupid if they think their tactics will work to coerce ANY policy change if I (and others who believe strongly in Western ideals) have anything to say about it. Luckily, because I live in a democracy, I do have something to say about it, and I have done precisely that in 2002 and 2004.

Bombing trains in Spain seemed to be pretty effective in influencing an election. I am not saying this to be flip it just seems pretty evident in light of what happened there.

Re:Terrorists aren't the bad guys, eh?

[LO0G]

Actually, from what I understand the reason that the election was changed was as much a reaction to the terrorists as it was a backlash against a government that decided that the cause of the bombings was ETA, even after overwhelming evidence pointed to Al Qaida.

Re:Terrorists aren't the bad guys, eh?

[kylef]

Bombing trains in Spain seemed to be pretty effective in influencing an election. I am not saying this to be flip it just seems pretty evident in light of what happened there.

Unfortunately, I agree. The outcome of the Spanish elections and the ensuing policy changes made me very sad, perhaps even more so than the bombs themselves did. Their reaction to the attack set an extremely disturbing precedent that can only encourage future such acts.

My only hope is that people recognize the issues at stake and stand up for what they know is right. Striking at terrorist networks around the world was bound to trigger retaliation attempts; this has been known for years now. We just didn't know when the attacks would happen or what target they would pick next. Our course during this period has been reliable and straightforward: take the fight actively to them as much as possible. So now that they have managed to strike a retaliatory blow, the question facing us is this: Can we withstand these retaliatory attacks before our collective resolve collapses under the weight of second-guessing?

Re:Respond with more force

[nosfucious]

Nice troll.

No one straps a bomb to themselves and sets the timer when they have hope for the future.

Nice response.

Thats right ScumBag, it was intentional.

[Halvy]

Sooo keep justifying civilian killings with the *stray-bombing* and *collateral-damage* excuses, and the good-guys, who ever they are, will retaliat in kind with a vengance.

It's not going to stop, until everyone *like-you* are aprehended in one form or another... you murdering monster.

ignorance....

[zerocommazero]

It's a shame that it took the world trade tower blasts for an average ignorant American like me to finally feel sympathy about terrorist attacks.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[Darby]

You analogies don't even remotely resemble the situation.

Try this on for size:

It's like a bully continually for generations kicks the shit out of a bunch of people. One of the people quite justifiably gets pissed off and kicks the bully in the balls.

Your argument is that the bully whose actions *for decades* have been far worse than one kick in the balls is totally blameless in this situation.

Now, do you start to see how far outside reality your idiotic comparisions are?

Now, my analogy breaks down as well. Nothing is ever this simple, and there are *no* good guys in this situation. There are some seriously evil fucks on *both* sides (until you realise this fact you will continue to be deluded and clueless about the world around you) and there are a lot of innocent victims on both sides as well.

So while my analogy is flawed, it's far closer to the truth than yours. Given how bad mine was, think of how seriously sick and deluded you seem to us outside of your head.

(mismoderation) Thoughtful and informative

[Cafe Alpha]

Funny how a link (and excerpt) of one of the most informative and thoughtful analysis I've ever read got modded down as a troll in mere minutes.

Jesus, the troll mod is meant for thoughtless provacators not for reasoned analysis.

Please mod the parent up enough to be visible. I hope meta moderators bite the fool who mis-moderated.

You're right. Partly.

[Grendel Drago]

I was conflating bin Laden personally with what I interpret as the goals of radical Islam as a whole. My bad.

I think of Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and I think of Islamism spreading into Europe. But that's not bin Laden's doing.

--grendel drago

Re:source, please

[gorrepati]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/29/news/toll.h tml

Outstanding Coverage by Wikipedia

[valmont]

Wikipedia's coverage of the London Transport Explosions is very thorough and very-well organized.

Re:First Post

[Ilan Volow]

One or two unorganized anti-government rednecks with a truck and some fertilizer where able to cause plenty of devastation in Oklahoma.

The only resource really required to commit mass murder is a lack of respect for human life.

Muslims are more Christian than most..

[Halvy]

Christians are today.

The fact that they 'keep-their-woman' in their place, and would have killed a monster 'like-you' ages ago, proves my point. :)

Re:You have to learn history before you can ignore

[mr100percent]

So... US giving money is bad?

Yes, throwing money at the problem isn't particularly going to succeed. You could make the case that giving Israel 10x the money made them a bit more arrogant and aggressive. Why not be more strategic with the money, threaten to withhold it unless Israel actually stops funding the Settlers? The years of pledges to Bush are worthless unless it actually happens. On the other side of the token, threaten to withhold money to the Palestinian government unless they monitor and crack down on anti-Semitism (and that threat has now been written into law)

Your right, it is political - but the politics are based primarily on religion.

All politics have religion somehow in the mixture. Why are Americans raising millions at the moment and preparing for a election-level fight over a Supreme Court nominee? Abortion is a politically-charged topic because of religion in America. What about the debate in America over displaying the Ten Commandments in government buildings?

How many Isrealies want to see Americans dead?

A 22-year old Israeli man named Menachem Rubinowits was arrested a few years back in the public gallery of the US House of Representatives for trying to detonate a bomb he had carried into the bulding. US News & World Report stated that the bomb "could have destroyed most of the gallery and crowded chamber."

America isn't giving support or money to people that hate them. How much American aid goes to the Islamic party in Pakistan, for example? The American money goes to bribe governments to crack down on people America doesn't like. Mubarak represses groups in Egypt that are too anti-American, Saudi officials fire and arrest mosque leaders who go criticize America too much, Musharraf cracked down on people that support Bin Laden. America gives aid to these countries to get the governments on their side.

Really, I think if Iraq becomes a free country, so that Iraqis can become rich through trade with the US - the world will be a much better place in 20-40 years.

Maybe, and I hope so, but I'd blame Bush's Iraq war for destabilizing the region for the next decade. Maybe it will be great in 40 years, but until then, we're in for a lot more violence until things right themselves. If you don't believe me, look at how the Lebanon Civil War turned out, and how long it took for the region to calm down.

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[N3WBI3]

"There are two parties to the conflict," he went on to say. "The world Christianity, which is allied with Jews and Zionism, led by the United States, Britain and Israel," he said. The other "is the Islamic world."

Books sold at the store attached to the Brunswick mosque tell Muslims they should "hate and take as enemies" non-Muslims, reject Jews and Christians, and learn to hate in order to properly love Allah. The texts say Muslims should learn military tactics and suggest that if a person speaks ill of Islam it is acceptable to kill them.

"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews (Yahood) and Christians (Nasara) for friends (Awliyaa). They are Awliyaa to each other. And the one among you that turns to them is one of them."

Am I saying all muslims are Christian hating killers? no! but those who are dont do it becuase of US policy, rather they do it because of religion..

It Doesn't Matter

[sycodon]

It doesn't matter what they hate or why they hate it. All that matters is they kill indiscriminately. Their actions ARE irrational; there is no reasoning with people like this. Terrorists are a cancer on civilization and they need to be cut out with the same ruthlessness and calculation as you would a tumor.

The war on terror could have prevented something like this if it was being taken seriously. Instead, "Old Europe" still approaches this like a law enforcement problem. It's not. This IS a war, and the enemy doesn't give a shit about the Geneva Convention. It's an international knife fight and if you worry about the rights of your opponent, then you are likely to get dead.

And by the way, if you seriously think there is even a little bit of validity that the assertion that the American Revolutionary Army could be terrorists, you are either profoundly ignorant of the principals of warfare or you are truly a MotherFucker..I suggest you read this: http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.htm l to gain a ture understanding of the difference.

Re:It Doesn't Matter

[Soporific]

Did you actually read his post? I don't think you understood it if you did read it or you would see the reflection of your own post as a mirror image of what a "terrorist" would have written.

~S

Re:It Doesn't Matter

[DG]

Keep in mind that the primary weapon during the American Revolutionary War was the smoothbore musket. A smoothbore has an advantage over the rifled musket in its rate of fire, primarily due to much less effort needed to ram the ball home.

The downside is greatly reduced accuracy. This was overcome by placing large numbers of muskets into a tightly-packed formation of troops, and having them fire volleys in unison. No individual soldier could be sure of his individual target, but a rectangular cross-section of space to the immediate front of the formation would become very hazardous to occupy.

In fact, the word of command preceeding "fire" in the British Army was not "aim" but rather "level".

Now if you are hunting food, it is very rare that you are presented with a tightly-packed formation of deer, ducks, turkeys, or whatever. Aim counts when you are substancence hunting, and so the natural weapon of the hunter is the rifle, not the smoothbore. Slow rate of fire does not matter when your target is not shooting back, and when it is likely to run or fly away after a miss.

Most of the firearms extant in the colonies at the time were hunting weapons used to obtain food, not military weapons. So the American Revolutionary Army make a tactic of not forming up in ranks to blaze away (as per current accepted military custom) but instead preferred to hide in the bushes, take a potshot, and then fall back into the woods - hit and run tactics, rather than stand and fight tactics.

(Your typical American Revolutionary was also ununiformed and so hard to identify as an "enemy combatant", where the British wore easily identified bright red coats)

The standard tactics of the guerilla throughout history - see, for example, the Mongols vs the Romans, or the Vietcong vs the US Army.

Seen from the point of view of a commander vastly outnumbered in terms of men and firepower, this is a natural and sensible thing to do. Seen from the point of view of the commander with the bigger battalions and the greater firepower, it is cowardly, sneaky, and unfair. Seen from the point of view of the line soldier, for whom death lurks behind every tree, this is... terrifying.

The major differences between the modern Islamic extremist "terrorist" and an American Revolutionary "freedom fighter" (besides the fact that the Americans won, where the Islamics are still in doubt - and never forget that the victors write history) is that, as far as I can recall at least, the American Revolutionaries limited themselves mostly to military targets (although the odd Loyalist homestead was not immune) where your modern Islamic terrorist draws no such distinction between "soldier" and "civillian" - and that is largely a cultural thing.

As far as "there being no reasoning with them" being a source of irrationality... if the Soviet Union had invaded the US (not that there was ever a real liklihood of that ever happening, but let's pretend) would you rest until all the invaders had been thrown out of your homeland? Would you accept the argument "Well they're here and they have all the guns, so we might as well just learn to speak Russian and be done with it"?

Do NOT mistake "They won't do what we want them to do!" with "irrationality".

Also, do NOT mistake "one must study the reasons why they are acting the way they are and seek to understand their point of view" with SYMPATHY for their cause. The American invasion of Afganistan was COMPLETELY justified, and I shed not a single tear for any Al-Quaida member or Taliban member killed in the process.

But one must also keep an open mind, and if one finds that one's own government has behaved badly and to some degree provoked the activity, it is just good sense to rectify the problem. Just because the terrorists want something doesn't mean that what they want is WRONG.

If I were the American President, I would have:

1) Utterly destroyed Al-Quaida in Afganistan and anybody who aided and abetted them. Utterly. Finding Bi

Re:It Doesn't Matter

[sycodon]

Within the polite confines of a civilized society, one may be inclined to seek alternative methods to mitigate violence than just violence in return. However, terrorist operate outside of civilized society. They respect no rules. They seek no real objective other than terror.

In that case, it is necessary to bring violence to the terrorist, multiplied many times over.

The only thing that has ever stopped violence throughout history is greater violence. Some would say that breeds more violence, but that is not the case. What breeds violence is complacency and ambivalence to the threat of violence.

Re:It Doesn't Matter

[stor]

It doesn't matter what they hate or why they hate it. All that matters is they kill indiscriminately.

Kinda like dropping bombs, eh?

Those maimed Iraqi women and children probably agree that the violence towards them is indiscriminate.

Cheers
Stor

Re:It Doesn't Matter

[Abu Taleb]

Just because somebody is caught in the crossfire, though it makes them a victim, does not make them a targetted victim. Yes, if Iraqi religious and nationalist fascists decide to attack the authorities (i.e. the Americans as per UN Resolution 1546), and you happen to be in the vicinity, then you better not give the criminals and baby bombers protection, and you better get out. That is how Fallujah was depopulated. The people there were smart enough to leave the city to the fascists and get out of harms way. Otherwise, there is no evidence that the US is deliberately attacking civilians with bombs or artillary.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[Skankme]

Actually, there is no other America. There is North America, South America, and Central America. You can choose to refer to them all simply as The Americas - but still the only place refered to as America is the United States of America.

Geez.

Your only kidding yourself.

[Halvy]

Jesus clearly several times not only quotes from the OLD Testament, but states specifically that: "..not one jot or tittle will be removed from these books until..".

EVERYONE quotes and uses the Bible to their advantage.. and I believe they should.

However some like you, think you are the only ones that *have-the-answer* and noone else is smart enought to read a Book, written so 4th graders can understand it. :)

Re:Your only kidding yourself.

[genrader]

You, sir, are an idiot. The Old testament is still true to this day. Jesus said the Old Testament is good and he quoted it...why? Because it's still applicable. However, Mosaic law has been replaced. Instead of killing everyone who has one little sin, you can repent and go on living. Sorry, you obviously don't understand the Bible. Maybe you should check up on the verse that says that unbelievers cannot understand it?

Another Londoner's thoughts...

[Anonymous Coward]

I live just above Russell Square tube station. Current problem: my apartment is cordoned off, and I'm not sure when I'm going to be let back in.

Luckily, I missed the blasts (despite travelling via Kings Cross to Moorgate - I work near Liverpool Street, too. Does somebody have something against me?!) but got caught up in the ensuing chaos, which didn't really last too long.

From what I can see, the police have done (and continue to do) a great job in calming people down and providing what information they can. Whatever panic there was is now over - it's more annoyance at the inconvenience.

What rankles me is the fact that attacking London is to attack one of the most multi-cultural cities in the world. Watching the TV in a shop at lunchtime, it was the Arab businessman next to me who seemed most upset by the events. He was shaking his head as if to say, "what idiots".

Like me, he probably marched against the war in Iraq. Like me, he's probably never harboured the idea of hating a nation or a religion. Like me, he probably doesn't see the point of indiscriminate killings.

Re:Read the Koran - Here we go again...

[yasbug]

starting to blame it on islam, brnging out the verses without context, without understanding the historical events behind each revelation

"Koran - The Immunity [9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush"

This verse was relating to a peace treaty that was broken with the muslims, and that a battle was to ensue...its called self defence. Notice though before that verse what the Quran says:

4. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

after Verse 9-5 the Quran says,

Koran 9.6-6.7
6. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

7. How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.

It says if they start, then you fight back, but don't transgress. And if someone asks for security, then give it to him...

oh, and forceing people to join a religion is not at all logical, this means that faith is not sincere...and in islam, one is judged on their sincerity and intentions...

Koran 2.256:
256. Let there be no compulsion in religion

seriously, keep any ignorant comments out of here, this is slashdot...

You got it backwards buster.

[Halvy]

We need more religious *nuts* to bring-justice to scum like you, who have gotten too much power.

Re:You got it backwards buster.

[huge colin]

If anyone is curious about the parent author, just take a look at his previous posts. Whooh.

Halvy, if that is your real name: Please stop wasting people's time.

Good job, geniuses

[cbare]

Wow, there's nothing like randomly killing innocent civilians to rally support for your cause. Good job, geniuses.

The violent wingnuts on either side need each other. I'm sure al qaida (or whoever's responsible) just created a bunch of new supporters of the Bush-neoconservative "clash of civilizations" foreign policy.

Violence, especially random violence, for a political cause shows a weakness of ideas and discredits the cause it is meant to support. It takes much more energy and intellect to create something positive than to blow something up. Destructive acts show an inability to create anything worthwhile.

Radical islamists talk about returning to the time of the Caliphate. During that time there was a flowering of mathematics, science, (algebra, algorithms), literature, and scholarship. Anyone trying to prove the worth of their ideas would do well to pursue those kinds of achievements. Blowing up subway cars displays a philosophy consisting of little more than morally deranged and intellectually empty fanaticism.

Re:What Goes Around Comes Around

[sumdumass]

There realy is no moral justification to attack civilians because your too coward to attack the military or government.

The difference here is that in every instance you provide as an example or implied example, The legit target was military or government and the inocent civilians were colateral damage. No that doesn't make it right by any means but it does make it a whole lot better then targeting the civilians form the get go. Many people in london as well as the US oposed the actions associated with the war on terror and fictional WMDs. To say that someone has the moral right to attack civilians because somethign thier government did is "moraly" bankrupt.

Everyone knows that the civilians don't actualy have a say in the things the government does. They have some influence but they cannot override the governemnt. Some of this influence was stoping the governments from acting in ways the people didn't like but as a downside i think now there will be more support for bombing other countries. Especialy if these terrorist seem to come from a particular country.

In a way i'm glad people make comments like your. It goes to show the rest of the worlds we actualy have a brain. When someone thinks random killing is moraly justified it lets the rest of us know how fucked the world is. THe bigger problem isn't the terrorist but how we let free thinkers in society have a laps in moral fiber to the point this is possible.

(stupidly related) Along the same lines, I'M wondering, the dog catcher impounded my dog and put it to sleep. Does that give me moral justification to go around and start randomly killing other peoples dogs? I mean i'm trying to pose change in the government and my dog was killed by the government? (/stupid example)

Re:Sounds good to me.

[Knuckles]

Thanks :)

School Bully

[sycodon]

Punching out the school bully worked out well for me. He never even as much as said boo to me or my friends after that.

Re:What will the EU do?

[maxpublic]

If you find no value in general Western ideals of freedom, democracy, equality, and liberty, then I am saddened for you.

You mean the very freedom, democracy, equality and liberty that many Americans seem hell-bent on giving up with abominations like the Orwellian-named PATRIOT Act? *Those* ideals?

The real enemy isn't a bunch of whacked-out lunatics who get their rocks off killing people, it's the power-mongers who profit off the fear that follows and the idiots who cower in their basements and do nothing to stop them - or hell, even encourage them in the false belief that doing so will provide them some measure of safety. The fools and morons who actually think that if they just give up enough liberty and enough democracy that somehow the government will be able to protect them.

I swore and oath to protect the Constitution above all other things, against enemies foreign AND domestic. The so-called terrorist - really, no different than any other psychotic mass murderer - doesn't threaten freedom or democracy or the Constitution. But it does seem that the Terrorist(TM) is an excellent excuse for giving power to those that think the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper to wipe their asses with. Those people are the REAL enemy, and they're entirely domestic. They are, in fact, fellow Americans, although it shames me to say so. Almost as much as it shames me to say that many of my countrymen are such spineless cowards they prize the illusion of safety over liberty, and will gladly give up the Constitution to the wolves in their midst for false promises.

Max

Those pesky Zionists!

[VidyaDas]

It's a Zionist conspiracy!

Re:Islam is a cancer

[jjeffrey]

NO NO NO. Islam is a decent, honourable religion. If you judge Islam for this you had better judge Christianity for the crusades. I'm not, but many of my fellow Brits are Muslim - and they are just as important part of our country as ANY other citizens. I really don't want to see pointless stupid comments like that. They are not what we need or want right now. Please shut up.

Re:EAT UP ALL THAT ELITE PROPAGANDA, BOYS!

[cofaboy]

I'll bite cos it's personal.

STFU tosser, it's a bomb that's all, we've had them before and we'll have them again.

Now crawl back under your rock and try and spread your spineless FUD elsewhere.

PS until 9/11 the IRA were US sponsered freedom fighters, go figure that one out. Should keep your brain cell occupied.

Re:It Just Doesn't Make Sense

[chmod 777 alexw]

In any organization involved in guerilla warfare I do not think there is any one person whose death would cause the collapse of the entire organization. That's why a war on terrorism makes no sense to me - it only encourages more voilence.

If I had the answer I wouldn't be on slashdot

[gzunk]

And YOU don't know me at all.

(not (eq? Iraq Vietnam))

[amightywind]

As to the Jihadis being killed in droves every day, I suppose that means we will eventually run out of them, right? Some of us are old enough to remember the US government when they kept saying how many viet cong they had killed. It eventually exceeded the population of North Vietnam. They used to call it "the credability gap." How many years will the insurgency be "in their last throes?"

I am old enough to remember Vietnam. What I remember is an amateurish military campaign directly commanded by an inept Whitehouse (Johnson), fought by reluctant, doped-out American conscripts against a determined enemy. None of these factors exist in Iraq.

If and when the US military or Iraqi army subdue the insurgency, the battle-hardend remainder of the Jihadis will move on to the next country.

Assuming there are significant numbers of survivors. Where will they go? Iran I guess. No problem there.

I'm glad you are so confident that the President's Iraq policy will produce a safer world. There are a sizeable number of Americans that doubt that.

There is always a minority that wants a Republican President to fail. I emphasize, minority.

Before the war was started, there were those who would have liked to continued the weapons inspections and international pressure to contain Saddam Hussein.

Yes, it had worked so well for the previous 12 years. I can understand why the international community wanted to continue 'pressure' Saddam. The skim was quite lucrative.

Since we can't seem to keep the Jihadis from entering Iraq whenever they feel like it,

I would not want to be an insurgent hiding in a mud hut in western Iraq.

Meanwhile, we do not have enough troops left over to provide creditable military option to deal with growing nuclear threats from N rth Korea and Iran.

I don't know about Iran, but judging by Dear Leader's rhetoric, he is feeling a bit put too.

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[the_mad_poster]

Am I supposed to think more... or less... of you since you lifted that entire midsection verbatim, without citation, from the Herald Sun?

Not only that, you, of course, didn't answer the question. Go reread it and try again, but I'm not going to hang around holding my breath on the offchance that you actually bother to answer it.

Here, I'll help by stripping out all the extra text which is maybe confusing you. Here's the meat you need to focus on:

...quote, directly, the majority of known terrorist leaders giving an ironclad statement that they have perpetrated X Y and Z attacks simply over religious intolerance...

Re:What will the EU do?

[VidyaDas]

You mean, relatives killed by Salafist/Wahabi terrorists that aren't from Iraq? Turn against them: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessio nid=V200CY1JBFIR1QFIQMFSM54AVCBQ0JVC?xml=/news/200 5/07/04/wirq04.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/04/ixworld .html

Fundamentalist Islam's desire to conquer

[ArsSineArtificio]

That world view and agenda has a lot of problems of course, but it's very far from any desire to rule America, that you claim they have "never made any secret of". So where are the public and unambigous statements to that effect?

"What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

"(1) The first thing we are calling you to is Islam. [...] (a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of discarding all of the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammed [...] It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme.

"(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you. (a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest. [...]

"(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. [...]

"If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. [...]

"This is our message to the Americans, as an answer to theirs. Do they now know why we fight them and over which form of ignorance, by the permission of Allah, we shall be victorious?"

"Letter to the American People", by Osama Bin Laden.

Re:Stick to what you know boys and girls

[Cornflake917]

Hello Mr. Jackass brit.

I don't know very much about warfare and national security. But I know enough that these problems just don't solve themselves. And I also know that I have the freedom of speech (at least some freedom), and I will be damned proud to use the right as long as I can, because who knows how much longer it will last.

There is not a damned thing wrong with discussing my opinions. They maybe wrong, uneducated and just plain stupid. But discussing these is a great way to learn more about this world. If you don't want to listen to them, then don't read them, asshole.

Honestly, you think just because someone has a friend of a family member involved in combat, that they will just magically know everything about warfare and national security?

I hope you get shipped to Iraq. Since you obviously know so much more about warfare than us simple, sheltered coders. We definately don't need you posting here.

It *is* a law enforcement problem

[Aexia]

and you'll note that all the major successes in combatting terrorism lately have come from law enforcement agencies working together.

This IS a war, and the enemy doesn't give a shit about the Geneva Convention.

You decry terrorists who kill indiscriminately and then argue we should act exactly the same way? WTF is wrong with you? Not only does it make things worse, it erodes our moral superiority. We *are* better than the terrorists and this is one of the reasons why.

Yet so-called "patriots" insist on demeaning America and her alllies. Cesspool dwellers like you need to get the fnck out of this country and let the adults run the war on terror now. Your juvinile approach of "problem-causing" is a failure.

Re:It *is* a law enforcement problem

[sycodon]

Did YOU read my Post?

Where do I say we should kill indiscriminately? I say we need to be ruthless and calculating in exercising these bastards from the planet.

There is nothing immoral about killing a terrorist. There is something immoral about standing up for them, suggesting we need to understand them (except to better find and kill them), or making a moral equivalence between us and them.

And I don't recall any law enforcement successes. And even if there were, folks who think like you would be outside the jailhouse protesting some make believe abuse before they could even be arraigned.

No, these people don't need to be arrested and tried, no more than members of the SS Waffen needed to be arrested and tried. Catch them and Kill them.

And again.

[Grendel Drago]

I put it in bold. I'm not sure how much more I can emphasize it. This is the 9/11 commission talking here.

"We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

So, I ask you---again---are you now saying that the 9/11 commission is biased, makes stuff up, etc.?

--grendel drago

Re:And again.

[Capt James McCarthy]

Sigh....The 9/11 commission isn't wrong, they can only repeat information that got from the administration.

Re:Wow nice retort DaveSchroeder

[daveschroeder]

Sorry.

I didn't vote for Bush. He implied that I did.

That's no debater's trick; he was flat wrong.

Saying the "end result" of a military conflict is "casualties" is meaningless. Of course there will be casualties. Is that the only result?

No "trick" pointing that out.

Further - and you can choose to believe it or not, since I assume your insinuating about a false appeal for authority - I was in the Air Force, which can be easily verified by the Department of Defense with a records request, and my sister is currently an active duty (i.e., full time) member of the Wisconsin Air National Guard's 115th Fighter Wing. While you can argue this is irrelevant to the discussion, it's just as irrelevant as the "old timer" pointing out that he "almost" went to Vietnam. ("Almost"? And that somehow makes him an authority on the subject??!) Further, many respondents usually come back with things like "Well, easy for you to sit there and talk big while others actually in the military are over in Iraq dying while you sit and type in front of a computer." While that doesn't even merit a response, I thought I'd point out that I was, in fact, in the military.

And as for his cutesy little "And the greatest damage is going to be done to the tender part between the ears," if you think that's a comment that merits any serious consideration, then I really don't even know what to say. (What the hell is that even supposed to mean?)

The only "trick" here was making any sense out of the original poster's comments.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[pudge]

-US, please notice calling yourself "America" basically takes that title away from Canadians and South Americans. ... Don't get me wrong, I'm not crying to you in the hopes a whole nation will read this post and change the way they address themselves. I don't give a shit what you guys call each other... it's just silly.

We've been calling ourselves Americans before there even WAS a United States of America. There's no reason to stop now, however inaccurate it may be. Not that it is especially inaccurate: it derives from the fact that this was intended to be a new American nation, and Americans were different from Europeans, so therefore we are Americans, not Europeans. It wasn't intended to be a statement of nationality per se, but merely to distinguish from Europe. Once the nation was formed, incorporating America into its name, the moniker inevitably stuck, and there's not a thing wrong with that.

It's confusing, but not wrong.

And incidentally, you would have more luck convincing people to stop calling Native Americans, Indians, and that won't go away either, and has a far less rational (though just as historical) basis for sticking around.

Filled with hate and ignorance

[Locke2005]

Anybody that thinks a few bombs in London will make the British people back down from anything is obviously completely ignorant of history. You know there are people in London who survived the blitz in the '40's saying "What, this? This is nothing! I've seen much, much worse... and it didn't scare me then either!"

Re:Filled with hate and ignorance

[/dev/trash]

With the blitz, though you could hear the planes coming. A bomber today, leaves no warning.

+++
My new Home

Re:Filled with hate and ignorance

[Cmdr TECO]

With the blitz, though you could hear the planes coming.

Planes, yes, but the V-2 rocket was supersonic.

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[N3WBI3]

I personally dont give a crap what you think about me, if youre stupid enough not to see the religous overtones of *everything* in the islao-facist world I dont need your respect..

Re:Respond with more force

[FatherOfONe]

"It's good to know that you think we should make general practice of nuking cities the size of Pittsburgh."

Well that is kind of what Saddam did. In a weird way it did work for him. He was able to keep "peace" in the area by just killing 30,000 people or so every decade or so. So in a backward kind of way I totally agree with you that the U.S.A. cannot just "nuke" other countries. However, like every country it must protect its people from attack even if that means making sure lunatics (cough.. Iran cough..) don't produce nukes.

You mention China.... Are they still killing people with tanks that want to have a peaceful demonstration? Are they still promoting slave labor in their factories? Are they still leaving their baby girls in the street to die just because they are girls? Is that the "World Leader" country you are talking about? I am not sure... Perhaps you mean another China...

Please stop.

[Fantastic Lad]

Exactly. Do you know me? :-)

I'm not the previous poster you were dealing with, but I just have to jump in here.

Back in Jr. High, when a guy was faced with an argument he didn't have the mind or spirit to answer with, he'd fall back on one to two ways of dealing:

1. Brute force.

2. Smarmy Joking of exactly the same kind you just employed.

I've been there and done it, so I know it when I see it.

--You just got burned for saying (yet another) thoughtless thing, and you didn't have any way of dealing with it other than to joke about it.

Perhaps you ought to stop in your tracks and do some hard thinking of your own about WHY people kill and the nature of politics and population manipulation. It's entirely within your ability to do so. Believing in emotional arguments and spouting patriotic ding-dongs like you have been is what happens when you have been made a fool of; when you've been used.

Being a dumb-ass tool is your choice, and there's no reason anybody should care, except the problem here is that you are being used to bring misery into the world.

--If you really want to make the world a better place, and it sounds like you do, then you have GOT to stop for a minute and ask where your ideas all came from. It's essential if you ever want to get off the merry-go-round.

P.S. I've never been employed by the military, but I have a brother who is, he's currently serving in the Middle East carrying a rifle. He's seen it first-hand and he'd tell you to your face that you are a damned fool if you really believe the pep-talk shite you actually bought and are now spouting.

-FL

Re:Please stop.

[DrSoCold]

Perhaps you should follow your brothers footsteps and you too can 'get off the merry-go-round'.

Out of the hundreds of people that read my first reply only a handful bothered to respond to something they interpreted as a challenge rather than a simple fact of life. I guess you were not one of the smarter ones. My post simply says, if you don't know shit then don't speak more shit.

The problem with the world is that there are too many people commenting on things they know nothing about and trying to palm opinion off as fact (cue Michael Moore).

You Can't Demonstrate jack..

[Halvy]

Oh, you can 'say' that you can. But first: noone (that means anybody that *is* a 'no-body', like you) cares. Everyone else couldn't care less what you think.

I am 'out-of-kindness' trying to remind you of this fact.

Your ignorance is 'proven' when you make statements against the 'current' religious organizations of the world (ie Christians & Muslims).

Your implications that *all* religions are bad, when in fact most 'so-called' Christians today (especially the likes of bush) are actually NOT Christians (but are a prime example of 'Anti-Christians') which is clearly defined in the New Testament.

Therefore by you 'knocking' this group, which is actually WORSE for religions (by being so evil and hypacritical), than even your sensless drivel about atheism, shows how REALLY dumb of a position you are taking!

As far as 'Muslim' fanatics or religious zealots, well, your probably another kike who thinks they are going to talk there way out of having a group of people (Muslims) from picking up the ball. The so-call Christians and eveyone else has droped it.

And now the Muslims (and all true-good people) are doing their best to break-up the jewish-mafia that has the world in a dangerous frenzy.

Re:You Can't Demonstrate jack..

[Pansy]

Sombody mod parent Troll. Even though he's pretty funny IMHO...

History lesson

[TheoSophe]

The challenge with history is where do you start the narrative? A lot of posters here point to Kermit Roosevelt's purported mischief in deposing the Shah of Iran's precedecessor. You could just as easily argue, as Daniel Yergin suggests in _The Prize_, that the Shah merely reaped the whirwind that his erratic and eccentric precedessor, Mohammed Mossadegh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadeq, sowed. I think it started during the Suez crisis. OBL himself blames what he calls the "tragedy of Andalusia" which happened in the 1400s and marked the end of the last glorious Islamic empire. Another example of this is the fact, as several here have pointed out, that what really got under Bin Laden's skin was the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia. Few have inquired or mentioned how our troops got there in the first place. Saddam may not bear proximate responsibility for 9/11, but since it's his "fault" that we were in Saudi Arabia, he may in fact be the ultimate cause, if we take OBL at his word. But even more importantly, I would like to point out that the US troops are now LONG GONE from "the land of the two holy places" in OBL's poetic term for Saudi Arabia. Yet OBL presses on. The problem with a lot of the analysis here is that it uniformly blames the west for the problem of terrorism. Yet we do not act in a vacuum. While there is no question that we are responsible for our own actions and their consequences, the same is true for the perpetrators of this act and their masters. Do they bear no responsibility for their choices and their consequences? It is a fact that every modern Arab and Islamic country since the Ottoman Empire has been an abject failure. Blame Sykes-Piquot or whatever all you want (which doesn't explain Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Indonesia anyway), we still have to deal with that fact. It is useful, particularly in a war, to understand what motivates your enemy. Yet it is not always necessary. For instance, it is generally and rightly considered an outrageous to suggest that blacks could best deter hate crimes by avoiding dating white women and acting more deferential towards whites. Similarly, only a retrograde suggests women would best deter rapes by dressing more modestly. The proper response to both of these suggestions is to point out that the perpetrators of these crimes are evil, regardless of what provoked them. And that those who defend them are knuckle-dragging moral imbeciles. The best way to protect women from rape and blacks from hate crimes is to militate--ideologically and by force if necessary--against such barbaric beliefs. If we know that Ted Bundy was attracted to brunettes, it does not follow that all college girls should have dyed their hair blonde. I would suggest that the analogy is apt, for much of what has passed for commentary here is effectively suggesting that Uncle Sam is wearing too short of a skirt. (This metaphor from Hitchens first). Yes, perhaps that is so. Some blacks are also impolite, and some women are skanks. But in a way, it is irrelevant, for these atrocities are beyond the pale NO MATTER WHAT the provocation is. Let us complain about various ways that the War on Terror has been prosecuted. But those who argue that it was never necessary in the first place are being worse than naive, for--even if it is not their intention--these apologias for militant Islamic terrorism have the effect of encouraging and enabling a pathological death cult.

Re:What will the EU do?

[AntoniusBloc]

The Downing Street memo does not represent "the fact that the US government was deliberately 'fixing the facts around the policy." The Downing Street memo represents no "fact" about US policy but rather is recorded hearsay (essentially hearsay three-times removed: staffer recording the minutes of a British cabinet meeting were officials were relating their impressions of the impressions of unnamed Americans they had spoken to).

For more on this and other aspects of the non-importance of this memo see the following opinion piece : http://tinyurl.com/7fzwg

On your point about a coalition, the US had a coalition for this Iraq war even if it did not have the backing of the UN (which, with the financial ties France and Russia appear to have had with the Husein regime was never likely) . I respectfully disagree with your assertion that post-war Iraq would look better if the UN helped out more. The UN does not have an exceptional record in this regard (the corruption following the first Iraq war is just one example). How would the UN have helped prevent looting? And please don't tell me its because of the fear that those blue helmets strike into the heart of the enemy.

Also, I think you assign too much importance to an attitude. If a country is unwilling to help in an effort that is right (assuming, for sake of argument that it is) but decides not to due to the "attitude" of one of the parties (which is what you seem to imply), then that nation's help would only be half-hearted at best anyway.

Most of Iraqi society is functioning quite well with very little or no presence of US/UK troops.

Re:Stick to what you know boys and girls

[hendersj]

Give it a break - you know the grandparent is correct on this. Trying to silence those who disagree with you is exactly one of the goals of terrorism.

It is not your place to suppress the thoughts and ideas of others.

It is not your place to judge those who post anonymously (whatever their reasons be).

It is not your place to tell us that if we haven't contributed to this pathetic war that we don't know what we are talking about.

And I *do* put my name to this post, unlike you, "DrSoCold", whatever the fuck that means - it sure as hell ain't a name. Posting with a pseudonym is no better than posting AC, so don't even pretend that not posting AC buys you anything in the credibility department.

Jim

Re:Very Sad

[Ced_Ex]

We can get you at any time. You are not safe. Be afraid.

Personally if I were a terrorist, I don't think that would be my message.

First off, for me to be a "terrorist/freedom fighter" I would have exhausted all my other options.

To set it up, your country has been bombing the crap out of mine. Regardless of the target being military or not, my life is pretty shitty. I have no easy means to access the necessities of life. Water works is destroyed because it was a strategic target, transportation links destroyed, food is hard to obtain.

Everyday my life is a struggle to see tomorrow. Though I am a civilian, my life is threatened by an errant bomb, or simply just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If your country would just leave or stop helping my oppressors, things would be better.

I have pleaded with you and your government, neither would listen. Your fellow countrymen are indifferent about the subject because they have no first hand experience with it. They don't know what's happening here.

Living a long happy life is not on the cards for me, but if I can do something to ensure the lives of my family and children can be better than mine, then I will do anything to get that, including giving my life.

So, in order to open the world's eyes to our plight, I will bring some of my daily life to your civilization. I will make sure you and your country sees what it is doing to me and my country.

While I have to run on the street from shelter to shelter in hopes I do not get hit by a bomb, you can stroll and wander on your streets without much care. If you only knew what I have to go through, perhaps you will change how you treat me and my country.

This is what I believe a "terrorist" thinks and feels in his mind right before he detonates himself or crashes his plane. It's desparation that drives these people, not so much insanity.

Put yourself in their shoes, and ask yourself what you would do?

Re:What Goes Around Comes Around

[Tongo]

You do realise that most of the "insurgents" in Iraq are foriegners and are NOT Iraqi.

Re:What will the EU do?

[daveschroeder]

The difference is intent.

When you begin to make the arguments that really it's all the same, you're falling into the trap of moral relativism. There is no provision for intent, for desire, for meaning, for remorse, for accident, for malice. You're essentially saying that the difference between generals and terrorists is the difference between winners and losers.

Note when you referred to WWII, for example, you used the word strategic. That word is telling. While scores of civilians were killed, most historians and scholars (other than the ones trying to rewrite history with an anti-US/West slant) agree that the action saved countless more lives. If you kill 10 to save 100, is that not worth it? Or is the very act despicable? Or is it despicable because you never really *know for sure* that you're saving 100; all you really know is that you're killing 10?

Don't misunderstand me: I understand perfectly the argument you're making. I simply don't agree with it. When a terrorist bombs a bus, the goal is to kill as many people as possible on that bus. You might say, well, perhaps that's *his* technique to save some more of his *own* people. Indeed. But if the ideals embraced by his people include brutally subjugating or killing anyone who doesn't agree with their twisted interpretation of Islam, do you not see a slight difference? Or is that just the same when applied to the US? I.e., that the US kills anyone who doesn't agree with it?

If you're a moral relativist, we'll never agree. If you believe that Saudi suicide bombers killing their Arab brothers and sisters in Iraq are identical to a US soldier following all procedures accidentally killing civilians with an errant round, then you've already gone down a road of intellectual self-neutering that, sadly, removes a little bit of humanity from all of us.

Re:THE AMERICANS DID IT

[ant1441]

Ok, lets go through these one by one:
1) they want to turn all the poor people in africa to consumers that buy coca-cola
Britain wants to change this, that is the open market thing, and is one of the reasons africa looses so much money, we are trying to make it fair trade, where we can, and will, buy african goods. Britains will loose some money (From lower prices due to higher availability) but we can cope
2) they want to avoid laws against poluting the environment because they will lose money
We will loose money with the fair trade, were still pushing for it, and one of the problems is due to the lack of availability of non-oil based cars, and the american 'need' for huge cars
3) they're just interested in how they're gonna get richer and that's just it.
We are interested in becoming richer, but we are finally realising, if we help africa, africa may later in time, help us
--
We have good reason to believe he was stabbed. There was a sharp object sticking out of his chest
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

Bush admitted the "war on terror" can't be won

[internic]

The most amazing part is that Bush himself has said this. In an interview on the Today show last summer, when asked about the "war on terror" Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world. Let's put it that way." To be quite honest, when I heard that quotation I thought that was hands down the most intelligent thing I'd ever hear him say. He was absolutely right; however, he backpeddled the next day and everyone (including John Edwards and other democrats) were saying, "He's wrong. We can so win!" It seems the whole country is in a state of denial on the issue.

Now, lest I seem to praise Bush too much, while I think he was right (before he recanted, anyway), I think his idea of the means to make terrorism "less acceptable" is completely wrong, and those means are making matters worse, not better. The problem is that in the end he is talking about winning "hearts and minds", and dropping bombs on people is not a very good way to do that.

List of countries that have fallen

[linzeal]

India divided off into India and Pakistan as the British India was artifical as Iraq is today.
Iran fell almost immediately after the coup we sponsored.
I said Germany and Japan were the only examples of such policies working and to do so required millions of lives being lost.
Italy overthrew Mussolini in the closing days of the war they did not have a government imposed on them, per se.
I will not even bother with the dozens of bannana republics in Latin America.

"[The USA went on] in Cuba to support Flgercio Batista and create Fidel Castro; in Vietnam to support Ngo Dinh Diem and Ngugen Van Theiu and end up with Ho Chi Minh and his successors; in Iran to support the Shah and find itself opposed by Ayatollah Khomeini. By taking a militant [...] position, the United States has repeatedly found itself on the side of the oppressors and against the people, or, in other words, against local nationalism.

Paradoxically [...] is seems that the more strenuous are America's efforts to restrain insurrection abroad, the less likely are democratic institutions to flourish."

"American Foreign Policy" by Kegley & Wittkopf, p71

Sectarian policies are already showing up in northern (kurdish) and southern (shiite) Iraq that do not follow the proscribed rule of law in Baghdad. It is foolish to think that these changes will not grow so great in time as to make the tapastry of law and justice dissolve completely as groups choose to ignore the provisional government or rally against it as being illegitimate. Unless the US begins thinking in terms of Kurdistan and talking to the EU about getting Turkey to hand over parts of its country to it than they will fail. Maybe not now or in 10 years but without a solution that establishes countries of peoples united more by idealogy than geography no measure of liberty from our bloody actions will stand the test of time.

Re:List of countries that have fallen

[stlhawkeye]

I said Germany and Japan were the only examples of such policies working and to do so required millions of lives being lost.

This is the part that you're missing - millions of lives were being lost in Germany anyway specifically because nobody was willing to act. What do you suggest the world should have done about Hitler? File charges and just let him walk all over Europe? It's not like nobody tried to play along with Germany and give them what they wanted. Fat lot of good it did them. Should we have just let the Germany have France? And Britain? And Russia? What's the alternative?

By taking a militant [...] position, the United States has repeatedly found itself on the side of the oppressors and against the people, or, in other words, against local nationalism.

The United States has repeatedly found itself picking the most America-compliant of two unreasonable regimes. Do you think the Ayatollah have really done a lot of good for the people of Iran? The Shah at least gave them their land back.

Unless the US begins thinking in terms of Kurdistan and talking to the EU about getting Turkey to hand over parts of its country to it than they will fail. Maybe not now or in 10 years but without a solution that establishes countries of peoples united more by idealogy than geography no measure of liberty from our bloody actions will stand the test of time.

Oh, I agree there. One need only look at the example of Czechoslovakia. And I said that our "plan" for Iraq is pretty sparse.

What do you suggest we do in Iraq? Get up and leave? How do we deal with terrorism? Just move all of our forces out of the Middle East, abandon Israel to its fate?

Let's say we do that. Will the terrorists now put down their guns and leave the rest of the world alone? Or will they (or like-minded people) work on seizing control of various Arab states and reclaiming lost land? Once the West has been moved out of the Middle East, there'll be no more bombings, no more planes hijacked, no more subways blown up?

What is your plan to combat terrorism? Because we've (as in, those of us who are not terrorists, regardless of nationality and political affiliation) have tried a lot of stuff and none of it has worked yet.

Re:List of countries that have fallen

[linzeal]

Bombing of Dresden was out and out murder of over 100k people I will not even get into our use of nuclear weapons or the fire bombing of Tokyo. These actions were committed as ruthlessly crafted revenge scenarios that made people who spoke Japanese or German as subhuman and deserving of death. A single nuclear weapon dropped far far off shore of Tokyo would of ended the war in the pacific, two would of been overkill. I am against agressive actions that go over the top in any war no matter how "evil" the enemy is they deserve not to be dehumanized to the point where they are used for target practice, need I mention the open fire zones of Vietnam? World War II could of been fought without the deliberate targeting of civilian targets but instead we chose to use military actions that would inspire overwhelming fear in the populace.

We cannot win a war on terror when we use it ourselves. Calling civilian deaths "collatral damage" is the same thing all over again in a new guise of compassion. If you think people 5 miles up in a stealth bomber have the slightest bit of compassion than you do not know their psychological profiles. Cold hearted as any murderer on death row in control of the world's most deadly weapon. They go through the same screening as people who sit in nuclear missile silos.

I think this is all I will say on the matter. I friended you so I can spar with you on some other subject sometime. TTFN.

Re:Islam is a cancer

[jjeffrey]

Over here we spell "colonized" as colonised. If your tragic lack of knowledge about the state of British society hadn't given you away, that would have.

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[Mr. Foogle]

So while my analogy is flawed, it's far closer to the truth than yours. Given how bad mine was, think of how seriously sick and deluded you seem to us outside of your head.

You got all that from two lines of text? My sympathies to your family. Time to take your meds.

Re:Respond with more force

[Rei]

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

Re:Olympic Link

[fbonnet]

Sad to say, but of all five competing cities, all but London had been targetted by islamic terrorism to this date :

- New York: 9/11/2001 and previous WTC attacks, Al Qaeda
- Madrid: 3/11/2004, Al Qaeda
- Moskow: Chechen islamists
- Paris: several waves in the 80's and 90's, Algerian GIA

Mod up - no need for tin hat

[Clansman]

the government does not have those kind of buttons, the networks do - and some made changes to allow doctors and others to get priority - Vodafone for eg, others made no changes - O2 seems to have worked all day here.

please get the history right

[waterbear]

Bin Laden and al Qaeada are very clear on their objectives:

* All non-Muslims OUT of the Middle East (basically any nation that is Muslim or that is CLAIMED by Muslims)
* Spread Islam throughout the world

Shortly after 9/11 I read in the regular news media a translation of bin Laden's aggressive declaration of war or something like it, dating from the mid-90s. It was significantly more specific than that even. First he complained that the US was still in Saudi Arabia (specially the country with the two holiest Islamic shrines) in spite of (he said) asking to come in only to liberate Kuwait and promising to be out of there when that was done. Second he complained about US support for Israel (and what Israel was doing against the Arabs). Specific Mid-East issues. Nothing about spreading Islam worldwide. Objectives can change, sure. But that's how they were reported earlier.

-wb-

Nonsense!!

[Clansman]

We have been making calls on some networks here all day )o2), some have reprioritised that's all (Vodafone)

Re: Nonsense!!

[gidds]

Where I was (fairly near Aldgate), there was no O2 service pretty much all day. I couldn't get any SMSs through, and attempts at voice calls all said 'Call barred'. When I made the mistake of turning my phone off and on again, it stuck on 'Connecting to network' and got no further. Only when I was on the train outside London could I connect (and picked up waiting SMS).

In the crush waiting for the train, I spoke to several other people who couldn't get their phones to work, and they were all on O2 as well.

Only anecdotal evidence, of course, but then so's yours...

Sounds like..

[Marc2k]

someone's got a case of the Thursdays.

I'm an idiot??

[Halvy]

For you to think anyone would listen to you when you tell then that: "they don't understand the Bible".. is quite idiotic itself.

Furthermore, I can only wonder when your hypocricy surfaces and you decide that it's okay for men to use violence to protect their family and country. :)

Damn Right the Brit's are tough

[IInventedTheInternet]

As an example of british toughness, back in the late 70's my mother worked for tourism in England. Her and an older english woman she worked with had just hand written 300 invitations to a party they were having and put them in the mail.

So they get to then end of the block after dropping off the letters and BOOM! the mailbox explodes, The woman my mother was with looks back and calmly says
"Damn, we'll have to write them all again"

As I was watching the news this morning my mom told me that story which gave me the thought "they'll do allright after this"

Reliable?

[Rafikichi]

Relying on Wikinews as a source for information is like relying on Slashdot... both are written by whoever ventures by that think they have something worthwhile to say. No facts needed... just irresponsible rhetoric.

Re:Reliable?

[4v4l0n42]

I very much disagree with that.

Slashdot is an open window to the World as it is, without any filter/check/censorship, which has its own good aspects, but in the end it is NOT a reliable source of information, well organized and control by people who have the authority to check the source of information.

Slashot is idealistic, wiki is encyclopedic.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[Genom]

In general, when identifying a place by adding the prefix "North", "South", "Central", "Upper", "Lower", etc... you're saying "As a part of the larger whole, I'm referring to this specific part".

Using this as a base, one could reasonably rationalize that the supercontinent encompassing North and South America should be referred to as "America".

As well, it could be said that our country doesn't really have a name, so much as a description. "The United States of America" can be taken as a very literal description - a nation comprised of a number of smaller states, residing on the supercontinent of "America".

That having been said, most people *anywhere* will know what you're talking about when you refer to either "America" or "The United States", even if neither is particularly non-generic. =)

Re:What will the EU do?

[demachina]

"The difference is intent."

Uh, dude the intent is the same. Its to win a political and military victory and break the will of a civilian population, by killing and terrorizing civilians.

If a strategic bombing campaign is targeting factories, military bases, and industrial capacity then you are correct, there is a difference in intent. When you are fire bombing or nuking cities with the express intent of killing and terrorizing a civilian population the intent is exactly the same as a "terrorist" and again the U.S. and Britain have killed millions more people by intentionally bombing civilians, than Muslim "terrorists" every will.

You are just doing what people always do, practicing selective memory and only remembering the parts of war you like, and can rationalize, and blocking out all the times America and Britain have indiscriminately and intentionally killed civilians. You say our reasons for doing something atrocious are always justified, you guys on the other side will never be justified if you do exactly the same thing.

Free fire zone in Vietnam were another great example. Civilians in them weren't killed by accident. The military's express goal was to indiscriminately terrorize and kill civilians in areas of Vietnam the military decided were sympathetic to the Viet Cong.

" US soldier following all procedures accidentally killing civilians with an errant round"

Nice bending of what I said. I wasn't talking about an "accident" and an "errant round". I'm talking about dropping bombs in civilian areas where the military KNOWS they can't differentiate between civilians and insurgents. Flattening Fallujah was a prefect example. A lot of civilians left before it started but many didn't and when they didn't it was open season on them.

Note that when the U.S. produces an insurgent "body count" out of Iraq which they dont do often but they do still do, all thed dead are counted as insurgents, and the never counted as civilians, though a high percentage are certain to be innocent civilians.

Its a fact of life in war, you are going to kill people I'm just saying I don't think you can get all holier than thou when people use the only means at their disposal to return the favor. Its the price of overwhelming military superiority, only stupid people would try to stand toe to toe with the U.S. and Britain by standing out in a field. They would be incinerated and it would be an act of futility. Only thing they would get out of it is some sympathy. Therefore its inevitable they retaliate with the only means that will work, IED's and suicide bombers.

I'm not saying they are right, some of them are totally whacked in the head thanks to years of religious indoctrination, but thats true of all religious fanatics not just Muslim ones. Jews and Christian can be just as bad. But you should appreciate that why the do what they do is totally understandable. It is the only way to fight a war against a country that spends $500 billion a year on wearpons and wars.

"Terrorist!" is the new "Witch! witch! Burn her!"

[Generalisimo Zang]

Cat Byte said: Why do people not count Hussein as a terrorist?

Because the English language has a hundred thousand words in it. We have specific words for things. You could make the case for Sadaam being a dictator, a megalomaniac, a mass murderer, and quite a few other things. "Terrorist", however, has specific conotations that simply do not apply to Sadaam Huessein.

Cat Bytes said: Chemical weapons, torture, murder, mass graves, invading a neighboring country then burning the oil fields as he left...the list goes on and on. He was a terrorist.

Chemical weapons. Check. We and the British sold him the precursor chemicals to make those weapons, and looked the other way when he used them on Kurdish civilians and on Iranian soldiers.

Torture. Check. Sadaam was a bastard. However, he never did boil people alive.... like the current leader of Uzbekistan who we rent an airbase from.

Mass Graves. Check. Like the mass graves that half the Taliban taken prisoner by our allies in the Northern Alliance ended up in?

Invading a neighboring country. Check. Like when he launched a war of aggression on Iran, with the support and backing of the US?

Cat Bytes said: How many hundreds of thousands of murders do you have to commit before people think you're a bad guy these days?

Good question.

Call me old fashioned, but in my opinion, murdering just ONE innocent and defenseless person makes you a bad man.

How many unarmed, unindicted, and untried prisoners in US custody in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo have died during interogation?

Is the number greater than zero?

Cat Bytes said: And if the polls are showing people thinking Bush is "evil" I'm losing faith in the mindset of the left even more than ever.

Now, hold on. A minute ago, you asked "how many thousands of murders do you have to commit to be considered a bad man?".

Well, how is it that you can pose that question in one paragraph, and then wonder why people dislike Bush in the very next paragraph?

Cognitive dissonance much?

I think I can speak from all Londoners when I say:

[mlk]

Thanks for the support & prays (which ever god they are directed to).

Mods on crack

[DigiShaman]

How this got modded insightful just blows me away of the ignorance on this forum. But I digress...

Because of LEGAL reasons, Bill Clinton did NOT accept Sudan's offer to have Osama Bin Laden extradited to the US in 1996. And I quote Clinton; "I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

Also, Khadafi did not renounce terrorism until AFTER we invaded Iraq. Because of demonstrated force, he was scared shitless of the current path he was on.

Law does NOT stop criminals. Law only dictates the punishment of those willing to break the rules of the country they are in. However, in order to stop criminal activity, it can only be done through FORCE!

Re:Mods on crack

[HuguesT]

Where does my ignorance show?

There is such a thing as international criminal law and as due process, and international terrorists have been and continue to be captured, judged and sent to prison. Look at how Germany coped with terrorism in the 1970s and 80s (remember the Munich Olympics?). All the terrorists of that era are now in prison, purging long sentences and seeing their "work" turn irrelevant. Who remembers the Rote Armee Fraktion?

Wanting to commit crimes is in itself not a crime, at worst in some jurisdiction you can be indicted for incitation to hatred, but this is it. Clinton was right, in 1996 nothing could have been done against OBL. Notice that nothing was done at all, that there is widespread evidence that the GWB administration knew about OBL very well but chose to do nothing as well.

20/20 hindsight is very useful. If you wanted to arrest everybody who wanted to commit crimes against the US, you'd have to stop a very large number of people, the vast majority of whom would never go on to commit any actual crime.

The worry is that by invading Iraq like the US did, all for the wrong reason, will not help the fight against terrorism. I believe that instead it will foster it.

Re:Another "faith based" initiative

[Quill_28]

Bull crap.

To tie Christians in the US to these murdering Muslims is ludicrious.

You may be mistaken...

[scotty777]

I am disappointed to hear that the stock markets are selling off just because of terrorism

You may be mistaken. As I understand it, the markets reacted to a predictable dip in tourism and travel which almost always happens in reaction to attacks on tourist destinations (London) or travel modes (such as airliners). The markets also reacted by driving spot oil prices down. This was because economic activity may be reduced, which in turn reduces upward pressure on oil prices.

I think the shifts in the market are not panic, rather they are calculated responses to predictable economic consequences.

My heart goes out to the victims and their family and friends.

Wrong path perhaps?

[Leveler of Nations]

It seems to me that I'm the only one with a train of though that doesn't lead to terrorism or radicals. When I fisrt heard bombings in London I immediately thought of the Olympics and Paris or New York.

Paris doesn't seem all that likey, as you hear of a lot more nut jobs coming out of one bedroom apartments in New York. Perhaps some extremist New Yorker thought he should teach the Britts a lesson and bombed London. Then, to cover his tracks, he creates a fake claim to the attacks and signs it AQ.

I quote, "MSNBC TV translator Jacob Keryakes, who said that a copy of the message was later posted on a secular Web site, noted that the claim of responsibility contained an error in one of the Quranic verses it cited. That suggests that the claim may be phony, he said."

Just my take on the situation. Heaven forbid someone not use the Middle East as a scapegoat.

Re:Wrong path perhaps?

[rbarreira]

Yeah, someone got pissed off, got a couple of bombs and made them them detonate in 7 different points within a short period of time. And oh, it only took about 24 hours to plan and organize all of this.

Re:Wrong path perhaps?

[yaweh]

It was probably some radical-christian-abortion clinic bombing-red neck from the deep south. Those fanatics are the craziest, most absolute minded idiots on earth. In a sense, they are the people we are at war with, because they have the same brain as the Islamo-rads. They are both, equally, Enemies of the State.

Re:I think I can speak from all Londoners when I s

[amrust]

My thoughts are with you all. Condolences to those who had loved ones hurt or killed in this tragedy.

Re:Islam is a cancer

[jjeffrey]

No, I'm afraid that law is down to the idiot Blair. Like the ID cards they want us to have and that no-one wants, and aren't even technically feasible :-) Today though he did us proud. The reason that was the only point I picked you up on, was that I can barely bring myself to bother to reply to you, because I know you are probably just attention seeking. Come to the UK for a few weeks, you're quite welcome so long as you shut up while you are here, walk round London. Leave the racism behind though don't bring it with you. You will realise that the Muslims in London are just another part of the society. Race and religion are less important in London than anywhere else in the world, and we (the British majority) are proud of it. While you are here, listen to BBC Radio 4. You might start to wonder if they really are that biased (at least not toward the government). And finally, we have idiots just as much as any other nation. I wonder how many of the posters at jihadwatch.org were among their number.

Re:What will the EU do?

[zahl2]

Keep in mind that "we" are being "prosperous" on the back of cheap oil. At least in the USA, I'm not sure that actually equates to "good quality of life".

As for aid, you have corrupt governments to deal with, which is a reasonable excuse for placing certain demands on it. But don't use that as an excuse for not giving any.

This doesn't mean we should throw up our hands---indeed many of our trade policies make the First World countries richer at the expense of the Third. See http://www.lwr.org/advocacy/tradeprimer.pdf for more information.

And I have to agree with the OP.

Re:What exactly does this has to do on Slashdot?

[fr0dicus]

By the way, 2848 comments disagree with you. Not far from the 'hall of fame'. How does it feel to be proven wrong by empirical evidence?

US seal borders and out of the mideast NOW

[Baldrson]

There isn't any reason to blame anyone for these terrorist acts but the high officials that are invading the world and inviting the world.

If they'd seal the borders, which they can do, just look at what the rag-tag Minuteman project did, and get the hell out of the countries of other cultures there wouldn't be any of this horseshit to deal with and we wouldn't have to worry about "show me your papers" being the new standard for freedom. If you don't speak English fluently, you shouldn't be in the US without a visa.

And with the US going into predominantly Islamic cultures with a "constitution" based on Orwellian "principles" like:

The federal system shall be based upon geographic and historical realities and the separation of powers, and not upon origin, race, ethnicity, nationality, or confession.

As though race, ethnicity, nationality and confession have nothing to do with "geographic historical realities".

and:

It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law.

Right -- that's going to go over real great with a clan-based agrarian people -- many similarities to the people who founded the US and gave us the Second Amendment.

As well as the second paragraph:

Gender-specific language shall apply equally to male and female.

Oh gee aren't we wonderful getting rid of SEXISM in ISLAMIC COUNTRIES.

This sort of politically correct supremacist horseshit is what makes the Islamic world see the West as "The Great Satan".

If the West or Israel or China or whoever wants to liberate the world there's a very simple standard:

Territorial allocations under eminent domain compensation and migratory support for the governmental self-determination of consenting adults of like mind.

For example, if some Arabs decide they like a vegetarian libertarian feminism with camel rights constitution they can petition for a territorial allocation for that and the US can intervine for the sole purpose of identifying the territory that would minimize the costs of eminent domain compensation to those displaced and resettlement support.

Of course, since this would require that the rest of us be allowed self-determination -- well they wouldn't do that would they? So since these assholes who call themselves statesmen and diplomats etc can't behave themselves then the next least violent thing is to get them to just go home and stay the hell out of other people's business.

So long as the West goes around with "constitutions" that have no right of secession built in as a corner stone -- the West is fair game to ANYONE -- east, west or mideast. The same goes for any culture that opposes the right of self-determination for groups of like-minded consenting adults. They don't respect the right of others' self-determination with territory? That respect is returned.

Re:jokes already?

[Tomfrh]

You can spin it that way if you like, but I think making jokes IMMEDIATELY after people died simply makes you an a##hole.

Re:What will the EU do?

[nagora]

a US soldier following all procedures accidentally killing civilians with an errant round

Or just shooting an unarmed wounded enemy because they'd be too much hassle to take in? Yeah, real different intent there.

The leaders on both sides of this are the same; there's nothing realative about it. Both want power, both are happy to have other people die for it while they're far away and safe. The rest of us are stuck in the crossfire.

WWII is NOT the same as this phoney "War on Terror". WWII was about something bigger than oil or getting a ring around China in case they start out producing the good ol' US of A. It was about fighting evil (which might be why America was so slow in getting involved). This is a mangy grubby little fight over who gets first dibs on the oil when push comes to shove later in the century.

TWW

Re:What will the EU do?

[daveschroeder]

demachina,

I'm not arguing that there have never been instances where the US or UK military did something unacceptable, or chose to ignore civilian deaths as collateral to another operation, or indeed intentionally killed civilians for a strategic objective.

I simply do not agree with your analysis and subsequent conclusions. I believe that in the majority of these instances, and on the whole, the general goal is an overall reduction in loss of life; the priority being our "side" first, and innocent civilians in general second. The atomic bombings of Japan are an excellent example, as I noted.

I also understand the arguments regarding suicide bombing and IEDs being the only way to retaliate. I suppose it would be futile of me to point out that (aside from the police or people who they feel are complicit with the US) they are, in some cases, killing their OWN PEOPLE! The twisted logic that has to be used to justify that is appalling, considering even if you make the argument that it's simply one to sway opinion to eject the Americans that are killing/oppressing them in the first place, the "oppression" they would claim to eject will only be replaced with their own oppression based on radical fundamentalist Islam. No matter what kind of arguments you can make in favor of suicide bombers and terrorists and their actions, whether it is with 737 or IED, I will not agree, on a philosophical level. Let me be clear: I do understand the argument. I, however, do not agree with it. I may be wrong. I am not saying I'm right. I'm simply trying to articulate my viewpoint.

Thanks for a reasoned reply.

You confuse donwtrodden with religious

[DECS]

I'm sure when you talk of "Athiests" you are thinking about the affluent, content, liberal minded collegues you know, who rationally type in their blogs about the woes of war-mongering religious fanatics.

But extremely religious groups like the Amish, Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses aren't inciting terrorism. They are confortable in their space, just as you are with your Athests friends.

The desperate people who get involved in terrorist activities of blowing things up and attempting to destroy the status quo may be religious, but don't need to be.

Some of the worlds most horrific bloodshed, from Pott's Cambodia to Stalin's Russia to Red China, has been enacted by fervently athiest regimes.

While churches enflame warfare, they do so simply because they are a ubitiquous social structure that can be put to various uses.

The real reason people do horrible things is to enact change when they see no other alternative.

The patriots who killed the British to set up an American state resorted to terrorism because they felt unrepresented and powerless against foreign control. They were religious people, but they were motivated by democratic ideals to kill, not by their belief in a god.

Its easy to identify Islamic religion as the difference between the West and Middle East, and certainly it is the tool being used by Saudis, bin Laden, and related terror groups to create support for their ideals, but the motivation for attacking the West comes from a desire to rid their area of unwanted Western influence and determine their own course, not because of their religious beliefs.

Religion fueled Hitler's rise to power, but it was a desire for power and national grandeur that drove Nazis, not the Protestant and Catholic churches that waved the Nazi flag. Those same churches were waving Allied flags and drumming up support to attack the Nazis in opposing countries. Hitler wasn't fervently religious, he just used churches as a tool.

Bush is doing the same today. Obviously all the hand wrenching Godism he practices is not some genuine religious belief, he's just playing the righ wing powerbase in the US to drum up ignorant support for failed political goals.

The fact that the less religious parts of America are far more anti-war has less to do with their lack of religion and more to do with their comfortable position. People got behind war awful quickly after the WTC bombing, not because they believed in God, but because they were threatened.

If you enter a content country and bomb things and accidently kill people at random intervals, it doesn't matter if they are religious or not, they will pretty quickly want to kill you back. And if they are unarmed, and you have tanks and guns, they will do what the American founders did - resort to terrorism.

Sit back, sip on a fine wine, and pat yourself on the back for not believing in a god, but that isn't the reason you are anti-war.

If you were robbed of your wealth, position, your family and friends, and left in dirt with a gun to your head by an foreign power, you'd be ready to blow shit up too.

"Armegeddon" and "War of the Worlds" are tales painting that very picture.

Religious people can be stupid, but as you demonstrate, so can athiests. Not believing in a god doesn't make you smarter, just because you surround yourself with other people telling you the same thing.

How exactly is atheism any different that any other religion? The world has religions that have no god. Nationism, atheism, and other ideologies that have no god are indestinguishable in the way they can be used from "religions that believe in a god," so suggesting that athiesm is somehow an elite plane above the religious is just as ignorant, self righteous, and rediculous as the Red States who thing they are favored by God for not being athiest.

Re:You confuse donwtrodden with religious

[huge colin]

How exactly is atheism any different that any other religion?

Well, for starters, atheism is not a religion. Religions are faith-based, and atheism is logic-based. By definition, faith is belief in that which cannot be proven. (Such belief doesn't sound like a very good intellectual investment to me.)

...so suggesting that athiesm is somehow an elite plane above the religious is just as ignorant, self righteous, and rediculous as the Red States who thing they are favored by God for not being athiest.

This would be true if it weren't for the fact that atheism is correct whereas religion is wrong. Religion makes absurb and extraordinary claims without presenting any evidence at all, while atheism is supported by logic and science. Here in reality, I'm happy to say, atheism is indeed an elite plane above the religions that it displaces.

Re:Propaganda

[timmarhy]

what ever his goals are it doesn't matter. the second bin liaden pokes his head up it'll get blown off 10 times over, so any plans he had are ruined. the best they can hope for is a never ending gorilla war, but most likely they will end up inciting extreme hatred of thier race

you're naive

[cahiha]

We destroyed the societies in those nations. We destroyed their religions and still send missionaries. We imposed colonialism on them. We supply them with arms. We prop up undemocratic regimes. We are destroying their agricultural base. We are exporting our pollution and social problems to them by giving them no choice but to produce in sweat shops and destroy their environment.

If we left these people alone, maybe in a few centuries, they would recover. But we owe them a big debt, and right now, we still make their plight worse on balance.

My Sincere Sympathies

[Archimboldo]

This act is sub-human. I'm so sorry for those who lost loved ones and who have been injured.

Re:First Post

[Lobo93]

Did you pull this factoid from thin air or what? I'm just asking, 'cause I've yet to read any accounts from the war indicating significant refusal to obey orders within the republican army. Quite the contrary actually; there was reportedly more soldiers going AWOL on the nationalist side than among the anarchist militias.

I'd recommend reading "The Spanish Civil War" by Antony Beevor or "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell(online: http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/)
for reference and pretty much accurate recounts of what went on during the war.

Re: funny 9/11 jokes

[L0k11]

i remember being sent a link to an ebay auction the very day it happened (and i swear i have a screenshot somewhere)... it went something like this

For Sale World Trade Center. Comes with both towers, buyer pays shipping, some assembly required. Urgent sale, item no longer useful to seller

Pay by palpal (or credit card or something) and receive two boeing 737s FREE

Thanks

[JanKeesJansma]

It's so good to see the response of the people who are actually close or involved in this. Yes is sucks, no it is not the end of the world. Very classy and hopefully (and after reading on here i suspect it do be so) this won't be smeared out weeks and months, effectively commending the wrongdoers on their effort. Thanks

George Washington, Town Burner

[rjh]

George Washington was called "Town Burner" by the Iroquois due to a set of military strategies Washington formulated early on in his career as an Army officer:

The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements.

Those were the marching orders Washington gave to General Sullivan.

If you were to ask the Iroquois whether Washington's official policy of burning civilian settlements to the ground rises to the level of terrorism, I'm sure they'd say yes. If you ask other tribes, they'd probably say no. And if you ask non-indigenous Americans, most of us say he's the Father of Our Country, First in War, First in Peace, First in the Hearts of his Countrymen.

We can understand the past without either condoning Washington's grievous sins, or dismissing his stellar accomplishments. Washington was a great man, who erred just as greatly.

But it is a mistake to think we can draw equivalencies between the Washingtons and Mandelas, and the Osama bin Ladens. Great men sometimes err greatly; but murderers committed to nothing but an ideology of murder will never be great.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Darby]

Well Antonius,

how do you propose to legitimize all of the other lies of the administration?

For example the aluminum tubes. The administration stated repeatedly that they were for making nukes, yet every scientist with any knowledge of the matter stated that they were not capable of being used in this capacity.

How about when Bush made his big speech stating as absolute fact that the CIA told him were not confirmed and that he *should not use*.

How about the yellow cake forged student paper incident?

How about stating outright that they knew exactly where the WMDs were?

Seriously dude, be a fan boy all you want, but to deny that this administration lies when they've been caught in a huge number of them just makes you look foolish and destroys any credibility that some of your arguments actually have.

Fuck Al Queda, and fuck religion generally

[MosesJones]

As someone who travelled through one of the stations (Edgeware Road) around 1 hour earlier can I just say the following (this is just to get it out of my system, it would be nice to think that anyone would read it)

This just sucks.

I've got home after several hours of walking, hiring a car and driving, I've sent my wife up to bed, and I've sat down watching the news I didn't see because I was in a meeting until 3pm, when we all found out what was going on. I've just drank a nice bottle of Australian Wine, and it still isn't enough for me to go to sleep.

I'm still going to go into work, we've lived over here with Catholic (IRA) terrorists, and now we've got Muslim Terrorists, and I'm personally completely fed up with having to "embrace all religions", lets ditch the fucking religions and just face up to the reality that

We are born....
We live....
We die....

And its up to each of us to cope with that and make the best life we can.

Who ever commited a terrorist attack in the name of atheism? What is the fucking difference between racism and religion anyway? Both have fuck all basis in reality, and both preach superiority of one "belief" or another.

Fuck the terrorists, I'm working as normal tomorrow. But most of all, fuck religion, its the 21st Century, lets face up to the reality that we are actually responsible and Allah, God or the great green goblin won't judge us when we are dead, its about how people judge us when we are alive.

I really hope someone reads this because it would make me feel better.

Re:Fuck Al Queda, and fuck religion generally

[trixillion]

I couldn't have said it better myself. I agree with you completely. The world would be a much better place if we would just ban religious instruction until people are over the age of 18. It should be considered a powerful drug and regulated as such.

I just love the rhetoric here in the States regarding Judeo-Christian values as being the reason for the superiority of the west. People need a serious histroy lesson, its as if the Middle Ages never happened. Everyone who has studied the matter knows that the Western world was set back 1500 years due to the rise of Christianity.

On that note I don't think it is religion in general which is the problem. Just the Abrahamic religions. Well, until recently the Jews were pretty innocent so maybe we should count them out of that list. The trouble is really religions that promise an afterlife and a hell for non-believers. Those are the ones that ought to be outlawed. And yes all of your deranged fundamentalist out there, I'm comletely serious. As an aethiest, I think you should have no right to teach religion to your own children. Matter of fact, I think its a form of child abuse. No different than feeding your kids opium each night before bed.

Re:What will the EU do?

[demachina]

Damn. You tell me the U.S. and Britain don't intentionally kill civilians. I point out they have, numerous times, throughout the last century. Then you say well in the "majority" of instances their actions were noble, especially lately. You conceed the U.S. and Britain have intentionally killed civilians, but somehow in your morale caluclus those killings were "justified", but you've unilaterally decided Palastinain suicide bombers, teens growin up in squalid refugee camps fenced in by Isreal so they are more like ghettos, with nothing to live for can never be "justified" when they do what they do.

I'm sorry you just lost the arguement. Fact is "terrorists" intentionally kill civilians to "terrorize" them. America and Britain have intentionally killed civilians to "terrorize" them. Simple fact, they are in the long historical view no better or any different from today's suicide bombers.

You can try to rationalize Hiroshima and Nagasaki in some sick calculus that by intentionally killing hundreds of thousands of civilians we saved so many lives. Well:

A. You could have accomplised that with one bomb, the second was gratuitous killing and terrorism. There is a new book out on Oppenheimer by one of his kids and it says just that. Most of the scientists could have lived with Hiroshima but they were appalled when the second one was dropped so quickly after the first. It accelerated their opposition to nuclear proliferation.

B. They could have dropped them on remote military bases, killed mostly soliders and Japan still would have capitulated. They dropped them on cities to maximize the terror and to insure quick and unconditional surrender, to send a message to the Russians, and no doubt to exact revenge for Pearl Harbor, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

" I believe that in the majority of these instances, and on the whole, the general goal is an overall reduction in loss of life;"

In World War II the general goal of bombing cities was NEVER an overall reduction in a loss of life. It was a war where the gloves were off, Germany bombed London and Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, so The U.S. and Britain were of the opinion their enemies got what they deserved. For Britain, once they decided daylight bombing was to dangerous, they had no option left but to carpet bomb and fire bomb cities because they couldn't find specific targets at night. They intentionally opted to kill and terrorize civilians to "minimize" the risk to their flyers. There is no such excuse in Japan. The U.S. was proficient at precision daylight bombing. They opted for carpet bombing cities with incendiaries to maximize civilian casualties and to terrorize the population.

Again I'm not saying suicide bombers are "right" I'm just sick of countries like America and the U.K. acting like they are pure as driven snow and would never do such thing. Well they have, and a lot worse. In my book people who kill for religion, wealth, politics and power are all equally contemtible. I have no use for the people who rationalize when they do it its cool, but anyone else does it they are no better than animals. Hate to break it to you but you are all animals.

Re:What Goes Around Comes Around

[MrPower]

There realy is no moral justification to attack civilians because your too coward to attack the military or government.

To the contrary, the (implied) point of the original poster was that there is no moral right to attack anybody, except in defence.

In the next two paragraphs you cite the separation of the constituents from the government as a defence against killing civilians. I would rather argue that the specificity of the attack is proportional to the level of technology held by the attacker. To this day, I have heard few objections the the mass of civilian deaths as a result of the bombings of London and (worse) Berlin during WWII.

When someone thinks random killing is moraly justified it lets the rest of us know how fucked the world is.

Acts of terrorism are hardly random. In fact if you delete the the word "random" from that last sentence, I think you would have got it right.

As an Australian (we're next I have no doubts), I have been distanced from the emotional side of having my country members blown to smithereens. By using the sliver of extra objectivity this allows, I can see that you could hardly expect anything different from the extremists. Look at this from the other side, if GWB, Blair and Little Johnny Howard want to wage war on terror, then they need to expect that terror will wage war back. This is all the GP post was stating - the extremists see the coalition as the aggressors and that they are acting in "self defence".

I had much trouble explaining this point of view during "911" and I fully expect this to be modded as a troll too but whereas the coalition says that "they started it" by blowing up the WTC, the extremist will point to the US foreign policy for years preceding the attack.

The age old adage applies, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" - something I have been maintaining that my government do all along. Hopefully they will listen before the attack hits here (I don't fancy being blown up in a train).

What's wrong with peace and co-operation anyway?

Re:What will the EU do?

[jcr]

What I recall is that the weapons inspectors were given free reign

Nope.

-jcr

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[Darby]

You got all that from two lines of text?

Your analogy was clear and indicated your attitude. US/Britian are pure innocents and the Arabs are pure evil.

That is the analogy *you* chose to make.

I attempted to inject a little reality into your worldview which seriously needs it if that's really how you think.

If you thought two lines of text were enough to express your thoughts, then why would it be so hard to believe that you succeeded?

Re:What will the EU do?

[subkid]

Or.. Sorry we're better than you. Your disadvantage is my advantage, must suck to be you!

Terrorism is NOT just for nutbars!

[kaladorn]

Sure, on some level, suicide bombers and the like are obviously (in one sense, since they are willing to die) imbalanced.

Yet, to conceive of terrorism as solely the result of mental imbalance is ... riciculous.

Let me put it to you another way and perhaps you can think about this:

Assume we have two forces, one large and well armed and trained, another smaller and less well supported. Assume that something the larger one has done has annoyed or threatened the smaller one (or that they percieve it is so, which is really all that matters).

Think of this strictly as a tactical problem. You are the smaller power, you are vehemently opposed to the larger power and its stance (whichever one you don't like very very much). You are at a point where you feel you have to fight back. So, how do you do it?

Do you:
A) Take your primitive tools, limited resources, and probably dubiously trained manpower into the field against modern professional armies with state of the art technology (planes, tanks, satellites, etc) and great training, pretty much knowing you're going to get your ass kicked?
Or do you
B) Take your primitive tools, limited resources, and dubiously trained manpower (and because of their dubious training, some of them may be well suited to certain 'special actions') and find a way to strike at your opposition which will: a) cause them great pain and upset and which *may* (maybe) lead to them changing their policies and b) strike at them in such a way as to not risk your organization or your ability to continue the fight and c) do so in such a way as you can afford and reasonably manage?

Strictly on a tactical level, going after the soft targets in a democritized society is a good decision for a small irregular force with some zealots handy.

No mental imbalance is required, except perhaps on the behalf of a couple of the zealots. Mostly, calm cool decision making is required from those who authorize, plan and order these actions. No mental imbalance there, just a real desire to take the fight to the enemy in a way that will really hurt them and do so in a cost effective way for the attacker.

Now, it remains to be seen if these tactics will force the changes in attitude or policy that the terrorists want. History tells us governments sometimes can be bloodied enough to back away from unpopular stances (sometimes at the behest of their own bloodied citizenry). Similarly, these ops may not be setup to play to a G8 crowd (other than to say 'you tried to take us out, we're not gone, now we're kicking you in the nads to remind you we ain't dead'), but may be playing to the recruiting areas where the terrorists look for a power base and economic support and recruits. They are saying to those people 'look, the little guy really *can* hurt the big guy' and 'our resistance is not ineffective' and 'we're willing to die for our beliefs' (or to order some brainwashed folks to do so for us, but that isn't stated in the PR).

I personally wore the uniform of my nation and would never like to think of myself as waging war on civilians. I'm not happy when I hear of civilians being hurt in exchanges between the UN and people using them as human shields. But the truth is, I was trained and acculturated into that view by the institution of my military.

If, OTOH, I'd grown up in a spot fraught with troubles, economic destitution, and guided by those who had a particular worldview and were gearing up for the final religious war or who were feeling religiously persecuted or somehow tainted or abused by a far off rich power (who are obviously corrupt because they're rich and we're not and we're morally pure so they must... not be?), then I'd probably look at the assets my side has (small amounts of money, having to work from the shadows, no B-2s, no F117s, no M1s, no satellites, etc) and I'd understand if they had to fight a bit dirty or hit at the soft targets. That's just how you have to fight when you're that outgunned. Or so I can ima

Re:Terrorism is NOT just for nutbars!

[DanielNS84]

Something is wrong with you if you're killing innocent people on purpose, doing it and authorizing it are equally as bad. Sure the USA might have had some issues killing innocents by accident but you don't see us beheading people do you?

Off hand

[WindBourne]

I would vote for you, just for coming up with a sensable reply. Sad that no politician spoke so frank and honest. To this day, GWB is running around saying that he has a plan to get us out of Iraq (same dusted off plans that he was a coward on 30 years ago).

Re:frogs

[ThaReetLad]

Quite right. It was you aussies wasn't it? I know, trying to put us off our game today. Well it didn't work.

Psycho

[riiiichanchan]

One word, read above, take some pills

Re:EAT UP ALL THAT ELITE PROPAGANDA, BOYS!

[rsynnott]

I'm Irish (as in I was born and live there, not as in my great-grandfather 9 times removed saw a shamrock once), and I think I speak for the vast majority of Irish people when I say that the IRA are not "freedom fighters", they are TERRORISTS. Just because they have that fscking Rolf Harris impersonator as a front doesn't make them all nice and fluffy, and most people here are extremely annoyed with the Americans who gave them money, guns and bombs. It's arguable that they were "freedom fighters" in the 1910s; they're certainly not now.

Finally

[techsoldaten]

With the group of cowards bombing innocents on a train, we finally have a group event the GNAA can look down upon.

Stay Strong London,

M

Re:Terrible.

[rsynnott]

Ah, oops, the threading's a bit messed up. I thought you were responding to my post criticising the idea of attacking Mecca; you seem to actually be responding to some other post; oops.

Reading is fundamental

[Apotsy]

Read the parent post to yours again, and try hard to comprehend it.

FL didn't say he was getting his information from Jay Leno. He was just using the Leno audience reaction as an example of the general public's feelings toward the whole situation. Leno merely mentioned things which had already been reported elsewhere. He was not the original source.

Re:Reading is fundamental

[ILoveFreedom]

So what you all are saying(I am reading this also) is that the AMERICAN government is responsible for all of this? That there is a Shadow government involved?(ie - CIA or other black ops group) BTW, if you really want to know something, it is not the Shadow government that runs the US government, it is the LOBBYIST GROUPS(which one of them may be this shadow government) There is mention in the previous postings that Americans are puppets to their own government, ignorant, and obey what their leaders say? I take offense to that because I am highly educated.. and I can think on my own! That because of Bush's policies and such that he and this government is responsible? If this is so true then why are these extremist groups targeting CIVILIANS ??? All of this rhetoric and I haven't heard anything about putting the responsibility on the people who done these acts of terror! Also, about the Patriot Act, yes there are some bad things about it, but in case you don't know freedom isn't free! Yeah lets keep our borders WIDE open so that these extremists can come in and out of the country freely! Wait a second that happened, they came, got flight training in FL and elsewhere in US, hijacked planes and killed american CIVILIANS not government or military but CIVILIANS. You people ask, why it took the president to respond so long and how he saw video before the public? Well, it is called security and security investigation... For me, I would want a president to gather all the facts before making a speech. I guess you feel the same way about Tony Blair in England then. He saw footage before the public saw it and he did not come out right away and make a speech. It seems that you dislike the president or our government , so vote next elections and/or leave the country! There are some of us who like the government now, but still think they can improve their policies tremendously. This government is perfect! Peace..

Re:You confuse downtrodden with religious

[DECS]

Well, how you define words does matter.

When you describe faith as a logic-less leap off a cliff, then yes, faith is rather irrational.

when you define faith as trust in something abstract that you know to exist, even if it is not visible or tangible, then it changes your view of what religion might mean.

for example, we commonly refer to currency and other securities being backed by the "full faith and credit of the government."

This "faith" is not an irrational, baseless and ignorant belief in something without any proof or logic behind it. It is based on the very real security people put in the abstract idea of the thousands of people who work in concert to perform the functions of government, and the financial institutions and other players who create monetary policy, enforce a system of laws and other tasks that make certain bits of paper worth more than other bits of paper.

the definition of faith in the first century writings of christianity is "an assured expectation of things not beheld," and is clearly different than the simple credulity you seem to equate it with. It is actually defined in the bible using a word derived from the guarantee of a property title deed.

While a child may see the value of coins without realizing why they have any worth, an adult has a long experience in working within a structure of law and order and those experiences provide a basis for faith in the system. That faith gives money value.

If you pay off a mortgage, you have faith that your title deed guarantees you ownership of property. Faith plays a huge role in making things work in our society.

You can chose not to put faith in the tenants of religion, but suggesting that faith is something with no evidence, logic or rational is simply wrong.

Thinking that you are on an elite plane when you simply don't understand the things you disagree with makes you no less ignorant and foolish as an anarchist teenager who attacks the society that provided them with everything they have.

Einstein and Newton had certain faith in supreme being, so religious faith is not the sole property of the ignorant, uneducated or irrational.

The fact that dictators, terrorists, and other evils have used the natural human desire to express faith to their own ends, and have perverted all sorts of systems of belief and ideologies to back up their support, says nothing about the value of religion.

It is in this context that I described atheism as a system of belief that is no better than any other system of belief, when viewed solely in terms of what those who practice them have done.

So in the topic of religion supporting atrocities, it's not the absence or presence of faith in a god that matters. If that were the problem, as the original poster suggested, we wouldn't have a long history of atrocities committed by people who professed to have no faith in any god (see Russia, China, Cambodia).

It really doesn't matter if you believe in a god, what matters is whether you have the capacity to understand things you don't agree with. I think that's where you fail.

You think you are better than others because you have an obscured, self-righteous, and arrogant disdain of people you disagree with, not because you truly understand anything or possess some special knowledge.

Thinking you know something isn't the same as knowing something. And when you use what you think you know to hate others and belittle them, you have a world where the USA wants to bomb Iraq because they "hate freedom," and atheists smugly suggest that faith is the reason for war.

I fail to see

[Inoshiro]

Where the AC qualified "We" as "We, The People of the United States of America."

Re:Stop igoring history, dipshits...

[stor]

Compared to the muslim countries they have about .1 percent of the total land area

Pity that .1 percent is the Holy Land(tm)

So much bloodshed over a "Holy" bit of fucking dirt.

Cheers
Stor

Re:Stop igoring history, dipshits...

[Abu Taleb]

Yeah, I cant figure out why the Arabs get so much out of shape just for the 75 square miles occupied by Israel. Do you?

Re:First Post

[Mjec]

I'd say it's actually quite easy to do something like this. The biggest difficulty is getting explosives but any university chemist (and there are 400 in the tiny, non-chemistry-related town where I live) can help you with that. Walk onto a bus, leave your backpack, walk off the bus, then it detonates - timer or remote detonation for the cost of a mobile phone.

I will however say that the anti-globalisation bunch generally don't support this sort of violent action and it is therefore unlikely that they carried it out. I'll also claim that violent action carried out by old-school British activists (I'm thinking IRA) is against hard targets and comes with warnings.

Re:Terrorists, separ -Why mosques can be torn down

[Abu Taleb]

Mosques are centers of illegitimate politics. They are NOT the same as churches or temples. Therefore, the people have the right to tear down mosques because it is mixing religion with politics - which is illegitimate.

Re:Fucking Animals

[segfault_0]

It was no secret that bombs were going to drop. How much more do you want to do short of not going to war, go in and move the kids out? War is hell no matter how you slice it and i personally dont approve of it period - but to compare announced airbourne bombing with rules of engagement to unannounced attacks specifically targeting civilians is not a well thought out argument - its moronic.

Re:Except 2 out of 3 quote are from the Old Testam

[glwtta]

Which are not the teachings of Christ.

Well, for the most part they aren't, I always found this one amusing:

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

That is JC speaking btw, but you never know, could be a typo.

Way to late for mod points, but...

[slashflood]

... whats wrong width those guys? STOP BOMBING INNOCENT PEOPLE, JUST STOP!!! Alright?!

We (Europe, Asia, Africa and so on), we are not your fucking enemies! We know that there's something wrong with Bush and Blair, but whoever you are, just stop bombing innocent people! We know that Bush bombed civilians, but you should do not the same mistakes!

Those guys who did the bombing in London (and NY and Madrid) are seriously ill. We're one world. GET THIS. Fuck. (I know: Flamebait).

Re:Except 2 out of 3 quote are from the Old Testam

[Abu Taleb]

Muslims irrationally believe that the Koran is the TRUE word of god and it should be obeyed unquestionably. There are many Surahs in the Koran to kill unbelievers, infidels, apostates, and blasphemers. There are Surahs that uphold slavery and sex slavery. Koran is not same as Bible. Just go and dare to soil the Koran or flush it in a toilet. You will be taken to court in France and in Italy. In the Middle East, they will rip you to pieces. In the enlightened west, the Bible or Torat is not regarded as the immutable never-corrupted word of god. These books are the butt of jokes. People even pee on the cross in public.

Just a thought

[Dollyknot]

Four planes downed on 9 11, four explosions in London. First plane downed at 08:45, first bomb in London at 08:51. So on and so forth, like the two horror timetables run so :-

2001 11 9

08:45
09:03
09:43
10:10

2005 7 7

08:51
08:56
09:17
09:47

Might be a coincidence - but could also be the same mind behind the planning of both outrages

Re:What will the EU do?

[jcr]

The USA blew up the World trade Centre by pissing off one person too many.

I can see that you need not be taken seriously. Thanks for playing.

-jcr

Formal Apology

[Number6.2]

1. From you general tone, I assumed you voted for Bush. My apologies. I now understand you did not vote for Bush. I won't make that mistake again.

2. As for the rest of it, I believe I can live with myself if I say "Sir, let us agree to disagree."

Fare Thee Well

6.2

Re:Respond with more force

[TummyX]

Okay, now breathe and think: what proportion of Al Qaeda/various Islamic extremists are there in proportion to the civilian population of a city like Fallujah?


Hmm...I guess that's why the city was evacuated before the cleanout.


Killing civilians is wrong and moreso dangerous because now you have just created more terrorists from the survivors


That explains why the terrorists kill civilians then!

Re:Except 2 out of 3 quote are from the Old Testam

[glwtta]

Muslims irrationally believe that the Koran is the TRUE word of god and it should be obeyed unquestionably.

Well yeah, that kind of comes with the territory for "revealed" religions.

There are many Surahs in the Koran to kill unbelievers, infidels, apostates, and blasphemers.

There certainly is a number of those, though in context most of them call for violence only in retaliation for violence done to the believer by the aforementioned groups. There are also plenty of verses calling for religious tolerance and understanding, at least towards other peoples of The Book. Historically these were followed in practice as well, something rather unique to Islam out of the Big Three.

You will be taken to court in France and in Italy. In the Middle East, they will rip you to pieces. In the enlightened west, the Bible or Torat is not regarded as the immutable never-corrupted word of god.

You are confusing belief and its influence on politics and state law. The only reason you wouldn't be prosecuted in the US (I can't speak for the enlightened west) for defiling the Christian Bible or the Tanakh is the concept that dogmatic religion and its laws should not have influence in the governing of a democratic state.

The followers of those religions believe just as ardently as any Muslim fundamentalist that their scripture is the immutable* uncorrupted word of God.

People even pee on the cross in public.

But soon they'll be going to jail for burnin a flag - zealous protection of symbolic artefacts isn't unique to religions, it's hard to draw generaliztions from how it's practiced.

Anyway, claiming that Muslims, as a people, are somehow more gullible in interpreting their religious texts than Westerners, is just plain silly.

* One could argue that Jewish mysticism holds most sacred the mutable and permutable, rather than immutable aspect of the Tanakh, but that's completely beside the point.

Re:Respond with more force

[FatherOfONe]

"Well, that is kind of what Saddam did"

Your reply... in short... Yes, just not as bad what is 20,000 people killed with gas anyway...

lunatics (cough.. Iran cough..)

Iran just elected the guy who was one of the lead terrorist in the 70's hostage situation. He has denied this, but the pictures speak for themselves.

"Are they still killing people with tanks"

Your reply in short. yes they killed people with tanks, and they did it multiple times.

"Are they still promoting slave labor in their factories"

Your reply in short... yes.

"Are they still leaving their baby girls in the street to die"

Your reply again... yes they are. Given that I personally know of three families that have adopted Chinese girls, and have seen the state of these children when they reach the states, I can say that this is a MAJOR issue over there.

Now you mention how the U.S. image is. You give a CNN link. Heck give a BBC link, I am sure there are a lot. Give just about any mass media link. Given the socialist and secular views of most of the media it is not odd that so many countries don't like the U.S.A. This has been mentioned in another post, but the U.S.A. could pull all the troops from around the world back home. Remove all debt owed to it, and still give all the money and food it currently does AND these attacks would still occur, but the difference would be they would become far worse. Yes other countries would "like" the U.S.A. more, but most sensible people would agree that it would be far worse in the long run.

Now how many people are trying to escape in to all these other "great" countries?

Irshad Manji: Only Hope of Islam

[reporter]

Comparisons between Islam and Christianity are flawed because agitators try to focus on Christianity in the second century. We should focus on Christianity in the 21st century since Christianity has changed considerably over 1900 years.

The problem with modern-day Islam is that it has many of the barbaric beliefs that Christianity had in the second century.

Yet, a better Islam is arising. Consider Irshad Manji. She embraces love for all: women, homosexuals, Africans, etc. She rejects all the barbarism of Islam and, in so doing, has created a sort of Deistic Islam. She is a Deistic Muslim. There are other Deistic Muslims, and they all live in the West. In the Middle East, Deistic Muslims are shot and hung by the neck until dead.

Mainstream Muslims hate her and want to kill her. Unfortunately for Islam, she is a minority and is not typical of most Muslims. Most Muslims support or tolerate mass murder.

Ms. Manji practices love.

Re:First Post

[unitron]

A previously unknown group calling itself "Secret Organisation al Qaeda in Europe"...

Do these guys understand the meaning of "secret"?

G8 discussion

[0xC2]

First, I hope they get every scumbag that planned or executed these attacks.

Second, why isn't the mideast crisis even on the G8 agenda? If it is, I haven't heard about it, *just* Africa and global warming.

Does the G8 only discuss economic related issues? What does the "war on terror" cost us?

Re:Islam is a cancer

[ThoreauHD]

I concur. Catholics don't go around killing people unless they are attacked. They were defending pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem, among other revered sites. Much like today in fact- airplanes, buses, trains.. Same shit, different day.

Kill the Cult of Islam. They are not God's people. They are do not represent God when they destroy his creation.

For those of you who defend murder, you will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Why bin Laden doesn't like us

[typical]

And by the way, if you seriously think there is even a little bit of validity that the assertion that the American Revolutionary Army could be terrorists,

The colonial army did all kinds of things that would be considered nasty and underhanded for the time.

One thing was to sit and snipe, continuously, from outside enemy range, rather than fighting. Sure, maybe it didn't follow someone's "warfare ethics" of the time, but it worked.

Bin Laden *could* theoretically whip up a bunch of people into a frenzy, go march them out and have them hurl themselves against a bunch of US tanks. It would be tactically stupid, have no impact, and would be vastly inferior to blowing up the WTC, but he could do it. But he's no more of an idiot than George Washington was, and isn't going to do that.

Watch the excellent movie Lawrence of Arabia. Besides being one of the most incredible classic movies out there, it demonstrates the way the West has been treating the Middle East since World War I. Understandably, some people are very unhappy with this.

The time after World War II was a great example. Quick, simplified summary of why a lot of Arabs don't like the US:

* Nobody in Europe or the US particularly liked Jews before World War I. (A good deal of this was due to the fact that Jews formed a disproportionately influential part of the professional class that was finishing off the last of the old peasant/aristocracy.) There was plenty of discriminatory law against them -- in some European countries they couldn't own land and the like.

* World War I happened, pretty much a power grab on the part of a bunch of European and Asian nations. Arabia, which was a backwater at the time, had British troops all over it due to combat in the area. Britain being Britain, it decided to start sticking its fingers in Arabian politics and "administrate" things.

* Germany, which had been stomped in World War I, had laws produced during the liberal Weimar Republic (post WWI, pre-WWII) which essentially ensured that Jews would be treated as equal citizens in a number of ways. Not surprisingly, Jewish immigration to Germany increased.

* World War II happened. It was essentially a backlash against all the rather nasty things that (France, especially) Germany's opponents in World War I had rather vindictively done to it after the Treaty of Versailles. Among other things, this included Jews. Hitler originally wanted to deport Jews to somewhere outside of Germany (Madagascar was a popular choice), but eventually (particularly due to France not cooperating) slid towards the extermination of German Jews.

* World War II ended. There were huge numbers of Jews who had had their property siezed by the Nazi Party and had to be relocated somewhere. Nobody in Europe or the US really wanted a huge influx of Jews, especially poor refugees. One convenient solution to the problem was that there had been a Zionist movement for some time present in the Jewish community to establish a Jewish state. The logical solution to kill all birds with one stone? Simply designate a chunk of the Jews' Promised Land as a permanent residence for them. That would stick them all off somewhere where nobody would have to worry about them, and they (or at least the Zionist movement) would be happy. The problem is that this area was already occupied by a number of not-very-powerful Arabic people (and the land, while not as religiously significant to the Muslims as the Jews, still had many religiously significant places). These Arabs were brushed aside, as the US and other European nations liked the idea a good deal.

* Clashes with Israeli nationalist settlers and Arabic residents of the area grew, and a number of Arabic nations decided to kick the Jewish invaders out. The US refused to militarily intervene and save Israel, but had provided Israel with some rather nice military hardware. Using this hardware, Israel handily stomped the armies of the surrounding Arabic countries t

Re:Why bin Laden doesn't like us

[DG]

That's a pretty good summary of the situation. It skims over some of the complexities, but such is the nature of summary.

Lest somebody think you or I anti-Semitic (which I don't think you are) allow me to add that I think the creation of a Jewish state in the "Promised land" was an absolute good, and did a lot to restore some of the West's collective karma where mistreatment of the Jews is concerned. Yes, it solved the tactical problem of "what to do with the Jews" and undoubtedly some of that was fueled by an anti-Semitic desire to keep them out of one's own backyard - sad, but probably true. But ultimately, I think the creation of Israel was a good thing overall.

Where it went wrong was in the execution. There had to have been a way to create Israel without simply "brushing off" the local Arab populations and pissing them off, without sowing the seeds for the subsequent wars, which in turn magnified the Israeli siege mentality that is in turn used to justify their treatment of the Palestineans - which in turn sows the seeds for all the terrorist problems we have today.

Hindsight being 20/20, it's easy to see how the road to hell truly is paved with good intentions. Now that there is 60 years of bad blood and poor behaviour on all sides to deal with, I worry if it will ever be possible for the situation to ever get sorted out. :(

DG

Re:Except 2 out of 3 quote are from the Old Testam

[Abu Taleb]

Your ignorance of Muslim society just reeks from this post. You compare your own liberal and secular upbringing to that of my country where kids are brainwashed from age 5 into believing ideologically and existentially in very dangerous ideals and imperatives. Your racism and quite evident from this post. Comparing your culture with Muslims and implying that Muslims have to subscribe to your culture. Well they do not, and we have a culture different from yours that you do not understand. So when Muslims cry for freedom, we expect you westerners to respect us, and not put us down with nonsense that Koran is just another religious text. Your ingorance of ME society, Arab culture, and Muslim culture is pathetic.

Bus Bomb Intentional?

[telstar]

Anybody else wondering if perhaps the bus bombing wasn't intentional ... that it was intended to reach another subway line instead? Obviously pure speculation ... I'm just wondering why it was the only bus targeted.

Re:Stick to what you know boys and girls

[DrSoCold]

"They maybe wrong, uneducated and just plain stupid"

You said it. Just because you have an opinion, does not mean you spread it like gospel. Opinions should be spoken amongst friends, not on international websites where any braindead half wit can read them.

I am here for one reason, to tell the bigheads who think they know it all to stick to what they know. I did not post the original story, if I want to find out about world terror events then the BBC will do, not /.

Re:Stick to what you know boys and girls

[DrSoCold]

If someone has a theory then I want proof, I am a scientist not a disciple.

If dickheads want to talk bollocks then place the evidence on the post before talking the bollocks then one may get believed.

Opinions are a waste of time, they are for dumb ass "journalists".

Re:Stick to what you know boys and girls

[DrSoCold]

I am saying don't post your point of view unless it is fact and you are well qualified to deliver it, if not then shut the fuck up.

Re:Mornington Crescent!

[dr3vil]

Sick. But funny. Thanks.

Re:Except 2 out of 3 quote are from the Old Testam

[glwtta]

Your ignorance of Muslim society just reeks from this post.

Fair enough.

You compare your own liberal and secular upbringing to that of my country where kids are brainwashed from age 5 into believing ideologically and existentially in very dangerous ideals and imperatives.

While clearly upbringings don't get more secular than mine, it was certainly not liberal (and I don't believe I've ever compared it to yours). I've seen enough of ideological brainwashing, both secular and not to know how the process goes.

Your racism and quite evident from this post.

Kind of a big word to throw around with no reason...

Comparing your culture with Muslims and implying that Muslims have to subscribe to your culture.

That seems like a knee-jerk argument - where have I implied any such thing? All I said was that you may be underestimating the similarity between fundamentalist thinking in the different religions. How on earth does that require you to subscribe to anything?

Well they do not, and we have a culture different from yours that you do not understand. So when Muslims cry for freedom, we expect you westerners to respect us, and not put us down with nonsense that Koran is just another religious text.

I'm confused - what do Muslims, as a whole, want freedom from (there goes my ignorance again, I admit)? What form does this crying for freedom take? And how exactly am I disrespecting it?

Oh, far be it for me to judge whether the Qur'an is The One True Word of God or just another religious text. I think that if you ask a few Christians or Jews, you'll find that they are positively convinced that their texts are the true ones.

Your ingorance of ME society, Arab culture, and Muslim culture is pathetic.

Well that's that then.

Bipolar Terrorists , Bipolar-predictable Timing

[newpath4comVersion2]

Well, they did it again. Had I been looking for it I would have seen it coming. But, so what? We see these terrorists, just waiting for the numbers to line up, so if we see a pattern coming up... WHO TH' HECK DO YOU CALL? 7/7/2005; 2005 adds up to 7 so you got three sevens in a row. The first London bomb exploded at 8:51, the 8 is one over 7, 51 adds up to 6, one under 7. In other words the damm dots are a 7 "holder". So if I was sitting here looking for this sort of BIPOLAR FANATIC, what do I do? Call Prime Minister Tony Blair and tell him everyone stay home till after the bombs go off? Yeah, right. Well, on 10/3/2005 there's another lineup, so everyone stay home that day too.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[toddbu]

US, please notice calling yourself "America" basically takes that title away from Canadians and South Americans.

It's funny really - I'm a US citizen and married to a Canadian. We cross the border to visit family all the time. The only people who have every been concerned with this is the Canadian border guards, who are quick to tell you that "we're all American". So now I just say "US citizen" to make them happy. But as for the rest of Canada, they could really give a rat's ass about people in the US calling themselves "American". In fact, they usually refer to "you Americans" in a disparaging way when we're talking politics (ie Iraq War).

Re:Islam is a cancer

[Monf]

Catholics don't go around killing people unless they are attacked.

As a descendent from 16th century Heugonauts, I must disagree.

In fact, here's an excerpt from some rant that I googled, and while is is a rant, it does get to the point:

"righteous Catholics killing good Heugonauts slaughtering devout Lutherans attacking righteous Catholics on the Continent; with righteous Catholics in England and Ireland killing good Anglicans in England while those good Anglicans slaughtered the devout Presbyterians of Scotland who massacred the righteous Catholics who attacked from Wales and Ireland out on the British Isles, ad infinitum and every bit of it driven by Divine Right monarchs allied, and constantly changing alliances with, groups of people supporting competing and antagonistic Christian beliefs" .

I think the point is that ALL religion ends up perverse, as people do perverse and evil things with great ease and little pain to the conscience when they can hide in their religion.

Re:Stick to what you know boys and girls

[hendersj]

And yet you feel that your own opinion should be given greater weight - why, exactly?

What makes you so special?

You wrote:

"I am saying don't post your point of view unless it is fact and you are well qualified to deliver it, if not then shut the fuck up."

Well, your point of view isn't a fact - it's your opinion, you don't appear to be well qualified to deliver it, maybe you should take your own advice.

Yes, it is a tough time for you Brits right now, and I empathize - really, I do - after 9/11, I felt much the same as you do, even having made the comment that we should just "nuke them 'till they glow and turn the desert into a glass field" - something I'm not terribly proud of saying and regret it greatly; I was angry and not rational, and it is unfair to characterize the actions of an entire people with the devestating actions of a few nut cases.

I had no excuse, and neither do you. I have friends who work in the British government; on our last vacation, my wife travelled by herself to Russell Square station to meet a friend - we've spent a lot of time using the underground and know all three of these stations pretty well.

I travelled to the USSR back in '89 (during the height of Glasnost/Perestroika), and if I learned one thing in my visit "behind the iron curtain" it's this: People are people; in most cases, they are just trying to get by in the world, be happy, have adequate food and shelter - they don't agree with their governments and what the governments do bears little relation to what the people really want; but there are always a few extremest nuts who play the politics (some of them get control of countries, and others don't - but the others are still there, and in this case it's Al Queida and organizations like that) and promote hate and distrust.

You may wonder why I say this; my travels - domestic and international - make me somewhat well qualified to talk about how people around the world relate to each other. My immediate family (including aunts and uncles) have travelled and lived in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Japan, the United Kingdom (England and Scotland), Mexico, South Korea, China, and the former Soviet states of Russia, and the Ukraine (just off the top of my head, there's bound to be more I don't know about). I have close friends in and from Australia, Canada, Germany, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy and France. These people are not casual online acquaintences, mind - they are all people who have been guests in my home and whom have invited me - when the opportunity presents itself - to be a guest in theirs.

This is not bragging, it's presenting qualifications, since you put so much weight in them. I feel well qualified to opine about the general attitudes of people in various countries, because I talk to people in various countries about their opinions and the opinions of their governments and people. Many of the people I know work in government at some level in some of those countries; one woman I know used to work for UNHCR, and she did actually used to get shot at in the course of her job - which was IT work for the United Nations in war-torn countries. She got out of that job partly because the mortality rate on her team was too high.

So don't tell me what I can and cannot opine about. If you don't want to read opinions, don't read /. - in case you haven't you noticed, posting opinions is what people do here; I'd hope you'd noticed, because you've done so yourself - and quite frequently, too, from the looks of it.

Re:This was innevitable

[Peeteriz]

I would kill the new government officials - figureheads cooperating with the occupating regime - traitors, basically. The leaders of the new police forces, instituting new oppression on their nation.
As it was done here after Hitler's occupation.
As it was done here after Stalin's occupation.
Occupying forces set up local turncoats to administrate the contry - just as it is being done in Iraq - but these locals are understandable targets of any resistance movements. THAT explains the bombings that are happening in Iraq now.

Re:What will the EU do?

[ajs318]

That is exactly the sort of attitude that makes people want to attack you.

Re:Another "faith based" initiative

[sinrtb]

I am sure the muslims feel the same way right now.

Re:Stick to what you know boys and girls

[DrSoCold]

I know what your trying to do ;-)

The End.

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[CdBee]

It's amusing that you can't even see the contradiction between your sig, and your comment

Re:What will the EU do?

[Threni]

> I'm glad you can sit so smugly in your position that the US is wrong for
> wanting to spread democratic ideals, and those of freedom,

You make it sound like the US has a track record of spreading democracy and freedom. Perhaps you'd like to tell that to the people of Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Chile.... You're utterly ignorant of the last 50 or so years of American foreign policy, aren't you? Or is the World Court and the International Court of Justice also smug and ill informed?

> There would be untold suffering - not just inconvenience, but all-out suffering
> and death - of likely millions of people if there was a wholesale collapse of
> the US (and, in turn, European) economies if there was an interruption in our
> ability to obtain energy in a stable, secure, predictable, and reasonably
> priced manner.

This is wrong, of course - no-one would die if the countries which counted oil among their natural resources were in control of it, rather than Western companies/governments, but even if it were true it wouldn't give us any moral right to interfere in those countries. Oh, and millions of people are currently suffering and dieing from preventable problems such as hunger, diarrea, TB, Malaria, AIDS etc. But there's no money in sorting those problems out so we just stand by and let them die (or, bizarrely, attend rock concerts and feel good about `helping`).

That link you provided is hilarious!

"From the Crusades of the 11th century to the Turkish expansion of the 15th century to the colonial era in the early 20th century, Islam and the West have often battled militarily."

Uh...Islam and the West battled because the West invaded Muslim countries! That's an example of how the West and Islam can't get on. Mate, I've got Muslim friends and we get on just fine! Of course, American soldiers aren't getting on too well with the Muslims in Iraq they're currently battling with, but then again, they are involved in an illegal and immoral occupation there, so what do you expect?

Re:Irshad Manji: Only Hope of Islam

[sjt-24]

"Most Muslims support or tolerate mass murder."
This has to be one of the most ludicrous, uninformed pieces tripe I have read in a long time.

Because someone proclaims themselves Muslim and then resorts to murderous attacks around the world to get their point of view noted, it does not mean they really are Muslim. Nor does it mean that they have the support of other Muslims.

One of the bombs detonated was between Aldgate and Liverpool St, as it happens I work round the corner from Liverpool St and live not much further away.
Aldgate has a large Bangladeshi population, to the extent that the street signs are in both Bangla and English, many of whom are Muslim.

These terrorists who describe themselves as Muslim and great defenders of their faith are targeting their 'own kind' as well as other Londoners.
The idea that the majority Muslims across this country and the rest of the world somehow tacitly "support or tolerate mass murder" which might affect their family or friends is really quite ridiculous.

Muslims are people, just like you or me, and their faith does not result in the kind of emotionless conditioning you imply.

Local Transit on "High Alert"

[mrch0mp3rs]

First off, it goes without saying that like many of you, my wife and I were talking about the attacks in London all day yesterday, and it sickens us greatly. The agility with which the attacks were carried out is pretty scary, so it's not surprising that cities like New York, Chicago, Boston, Paris -- they're watching what's going on.

But, not without some humor, when I got home from work last night, as I turned on the TV a commercial for the news came on:

"Local Transit on High Alert - More at 11."

Now, this would make perfect sense if I lived in a big city. But I live in Johnstown, PA. I seriously doubt our transit system consists of more than five buses and a mule.

More to the point: this same news team brought me the urgent news about a rash of lawn ornament robberies. This was a top story around Halloween last year.

Re:What will the EU do?

[meringuoid]

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.

Proposed solution: Communist revolution followed by state seizure of Western-owned property - mines, factories etc. - the profits from which will in future remain within the country rather than going to American shareholders.

You guys OK with that, or do we suddenly need your permission?

Get your facts straight

[WindBourne]

It was Regans signature that gave Bin Ladin CIA training . After USSR pulled out of of afghanastan, things were good. Then we went into Iraq. In doing so, we built a base on Saudi Arabia. While Poppa Bush was in office, Bin Ladin declared war on America.

Iraqi WMD

[sail4evr]

A plausible scenario that clears up a lot of BS.

As Saddam's son (whatever his name was) I am entrusted with safeguarding our country's WMD. I gather all the BIO weapons onto a few trucks. I get another couple of trucks with a few bulldozers, my personal bodyguard, 4 security guards, as well as the equipment operators. I drive out into the desert 10 miles from anywhere. I have the equipment operators dig a trench 15 ft wide and 10 feet deep and the length of all the trucks I drove out there. I drive all the trucks with the WMD into the trench and bury them. I write down the GPS location, blow up the still visible bulldozers so they look like war casualties, have the security personel kill the equipment operators, my body guard kill the security personnel, I kill my bodyguard and drive back, the only person who knows where the WMD are hidden. I then die in a shootout while avoiding capture.

One hundred years from now when they are building a new housing subdivision outside Bahgdad they will dig up some trucks and say "Oh look what we found."

Stupid terrorists

[iraqicabbages.co.uk]

I think the terrorists are feeling quite annoyed and embarrased right now, the British people and their nature are preventing them from doing their job, they have failed spectacularly in causing nation-wide terror. I would quite happily and very proudly ride on a tube train or a bus and I have no fear of flying or taking any other form of transport. These terrorist losers obviously forgot how resiliant the British are and how we deal with issues like this. We are concerned, but not shaken and definately not stirred, this is merely a scratch in the arm of Britain.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[databyss]

Seeing as I am grown up, I'll have to ask you to elaborate.

Tell that to the victims...

[DG]

The problem here is that the primary purpose in Iraq - jast as it was in Vietnam - is a "hearts and minds" campaign.

It is very difficult to convince somebody that you are the good guys when you have just blown his wife and children to bits, no matter how accidentally.

Even damage to infrastructure works counter to the goal. It's hard to like the Americans much when the lights don't work, the toilet doesn't work, and you have to hump 10k to pick up water at the local water point because the water isn't running.

Collateral damage creates andger and resentment among the civilian population. This leads to opposition to the American-backed authorities, and is fertile recruiting ground for terrorists and insergents.

Targeted or not, a victim is still a victim, and independant of the morality of victimizing innocents, collateral damage aids the enemy.

What part of this is a good idea?

DG

Re:You confuse downtrodden with religious

[huge colin]

when you define faith as trust in something abstract that you know to exist, even if it is not visible or tangible, then it changes your view of what religion might mean.

Is there any test that could be performed to show conclusively that a god or gods exist? If the answer is no, then you cannot possibly know that it exists. If the answer is yes, then belief in this god is not faith, because faith depends on the subject being undetectable. Either way, faith loses.

Einstein and Newton had certain faith in supreme being, so religious faith is not the sole property of the ignorant, uneducated or irrational.

I think Einstein has a better idea of what Einstein believes. Let's let him speak for himself:

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- Albert Einstein, 1954

As far as Newton's beliefs go, you're depending on what a 17th-century mathematician was willing to publicly reveal about his religious convictions. Atheism was not very popular at the time, so people would have been reluctant to disclose it. Faith is not scientific, so any real scientist is an atheist scientist.

Since we've already shown that faith is irrational, I conjecture that, yes, religious faith is the sole property of the irrational.

You think you are better than others because you have an obscured, self-righteous, and arrogant disdain of people you disagree with, not because you truly understand anything or possess some special knowledge.

Actually no. I do 'truly understand' something that most people seem to miss:

- What science is
- Why we do science
- How to properly do science

If everyone understood these things, they'd be right there with me. Because they don't, they find it acceptable to have faith-based beliefs. Faith is not scientific, and science has been elegantly and simply designed to be able to explain anything that is explainable.

Good point.

[/dev/trash]

Were there more traditional bombing runs though?

+++
My last.fm page

Re:Good point.

[Cmdr TECO]

Yes, German planes dropped over a million bombs in the first few months of the Blitz alone (autumn 1940). They were eventually beaten back by the RAF ("Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few") well before the V-2 was developed.

Only 1,358 V-2s were fired at London, in 1944-1945. But the V-2s, like the terrorists' bombs, arrived without warning, and there was no effective defense; they were stopped by destroying the organization that sent them.

Re:This was innevitable

[porcupine8]

If you want to kill local turncoats, and know who they are, why set off bombs that are also going to kill whatever dozen innocent passerby happen to be around? People have been killing one person at a time in numerous ways throughout human history, I find it hard to believe that bombs are the most targeted weapon they could use.

Re:Propaganda

[TamMan2000]

So you don't think that we, as voters, are responsible for the acts of our government?

Also, if the public had not been behind Bush on the Iraq debacle, there is no way in hell we would be there now. Do you honestly think otherwise?

If public opinion had been in the 70% strongly oppose war neigbhorhood, Bush would have been impeached before the start of the war, but all of the sheep that I share this country with bought his lies and said I was crazy when I compaired WMD to the gulf of tonkin.

It sure is convinient for people like you to say "oh it's not my fault I picked a warmongering ass hole to be president", well I got news for you, it is your fucking fault!

Definitely intentional.

[DerProfi]

Of course it was intentional, but IMHO not in the way you're thinking. It follows a pattern that we've seen these Islamofascist vermin use elsewhere, like Israel:

1. Hit your primary target
2. Wait until emergency personnel start resonding to the primary target and meanwhile, commuters start routing around the initial damage
3. Have another bomb waiting to hit the alternate commuter route (in this case, I believe the buses had picked up lots of extra traffic since the damaged tube stations were out of commission) or hit the primary target again, which by is now full of new targets in the form of police and paramedics.
4. never mind...obligatory Slashdot joke not appropriate at this time

This seems plausible based on the timeline, which shows almost an hour elapsing between the first explosion and the bus bomb:

0751GMT - Explosion on underground train around 100 metres from Liverpool Street station
0756GMT - Explosion hits train on the Piccadilly line between King's Cross station and Russell Square
0817GMT - Explosion on circle line train going into Edgware Road underground station
0847GMT - Explosion on No. 30 double-decker bus near Tavistock Place

Re:Was supporting this war based on lies a job req

[joncue]

The spelling was deliberate, as it was misspelled in the post I replied to. Figure if I continued with it, someone would eventually get the point.

Re:Fucking Animals

[Demonspawn]

More likely, it is because you were bought up in a civllized society where you can expect "someone else" to take care of the problem for you, i.e. police or goverment. It has nothing to do with 'better than them' it simply has to do with someone else doing the dirty work of presenting cohersive force/violence for you.

Now, step outside of your own world for a second and look at it a slight bit closer to how it actually happened. Let's say someone from the next city/village over attempted to kill your father/boss/friend and YOU are the one with the capability to do anything about it... nobody else has firearms/you are the one in control of the local militia. The 'other city/village' has no effective law enforcement, so you can never expect the perps to see justice. Your only options are to remove them, or have them attempt to strike again.

Why the fuck wouldn't you firebomb them? Do you enjoy yourself and those you care about being the targets of potshots? Appleasement? Then the next time they want something from you they'll go after your wife/son/daughter.

Never forget that violence, either inflicted or the threat of it, is what makes the world go round. The only difference that 'civilized society' has is we let the police and goverment do it for us, rather than having to do it ourselves.

--Demonspawn

Re:Was supporting this war based on lies a job req

[joncue]

Definition of 'Flaimbait' from /. moderator guidelines:

"Bad comments have nothing to do with the article they are attached to. They call someone names. They ridicule someone for having a different opinion without backing it up with anything more tangible than strong words. Bad comments are repeats of something said 15 times already making it quite apparent that the writer didn't read the previous comments. They use foul language. They are hard to read or just don't make any sense."

How exactly is my previous comment flambait, you want flambait, I'll give it, asshole.

Fear not Mourning

[0xC2]

Speaking for us "wealthy" white folks that control major media: Face it, we are not mourning innocent civilians, or we would be discussing the innocent killed by bombs and poverty, etc. everday. This is a pure "could have been me!" reaction.

Like when a cute white girl (wealthy family? Better!) turns up missing or killed. Big news then, eh?

When "we" can be outraged by those we don't share socioeconomic/regional/culture, etc. then we're on the road to justice.

Don't hold your breath...

Colonized.

[Col. Bloodnok]

Wrong.

Look in the Oxford English Dictionary and you'll find 'colonized (also -ised)'.

Re:Another "faith based" initiative

[Quill_28]

Fair enough.

But the muslims who don't agree should make it plenty clear they don't agree.

Re:Look before you rant..

[hesiod]

> Police are just too eager and effective

Hahaha, whoah, that was a good one. Gotta wipe the laughter from my eyes. You had a great, reasonable post, and to sneak an amazingly funny joke like that right into the middle is just classic..

Re:So you're saying the region was stable before u

[zardo]

Go re-read history, there was an active insurgency. The nazi party had to be rounded up and exterminated, one by one. They were even living in the United States. Back then people had no sympathy for the enemy, but it's not like that any more.

Another four

[Dollyknot]

I have subsequently found out *four* trains were hit in Madrid in the morning rush hour. I'd say somebody is trying to leave a signature.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[Xiaran]

Only on slashdot do you find people arguing the sematics of what you should call the US on a thread about terroist bombings.

It kind of makes me proud of my fellow geeks in a funny way :)

Re:MI5 email rumor

[rbarreira]

Read this.

Re:England just another blood splat on the wall.

[rbarreira]

Maybe you need some psychological assistance... Don't avoid it if you feel the need!

People's predictions are proving accurate

[rbarreira]

Read this!

And here's the link to find gems like this in the next few days/months

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[tabrnaker]

Is it just people from the USA that seem to think that since an error is in widespread use that it's a good reason to continue using it?

You know, we wouldn't need the term east indian if certain people stopped calling american natives indians.

Re:who cares?

[wongn]

I think you'll find that people in London, esp. those directly affected by the attacks, care. One of the more direct differences is that most of the people who do die in Iraq, however unfortunate it is, are military or Police. When signing up for this job, you do accept the possibility of dying, and probability of being exposed to danger. Here, innocent civilians were killed.

The Definition of Terrorism is Easy

[thelizman]

'The use of indescriminate violence targeting civilian populations with the intent of effecting political or social change.' The problem is that you have political hacks who play semantic games because their not intelligent to understand it, or not moral enough to admit it.

Re:The Definition of Terrorism is Easy

[kevinbr]

So a B-52 wasting an Afghan Viliage is......what?

The reality is that after WW1 the west decided that attacking civilian populations was acceptable, and now they "sell" it by the myth of collateral damage.

As one who has ridden the tubes many times to work, that could have been me. As one who has spent quite some time in Afghanistan, that could have been me.

We have bombs, they have bombs. People die, and those left ask why as they arm the fuse on the revenge blast.

Re:The Definition of Terrorism is Easy

[thelizman]

So a B-52 wasting an Afghan Viliage is......what?

A figment of your imagination, inspired by a fertile mixture of hate, ignorance and fear on your part. What is even more alarming is that people like you knowingly make up these lies as you go along, then operate based on them.

The reality is that after WW1 the west decided that attacking civilian populations was acceptable

It's precisely the opposite. Attacking civilian populations ceased to be acceptable as of the end of WWII, and by the end of Viet Nam warfare was impossible if it could not be accomplished with a minimum of civilian losses.

You're not even worth talking to, honestly. Go get educated. Get some facts. Stop regurgitating the propaganda you've been spoon fed all your young life.

Re:The Definition of Terrorism is Easy

[kevinbr]

Just a single example of many......this is the most recent of course.

"....Date Posted: Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Afghanistan called the deaths of up to 17 people in a U.S. airstrike unjustified, as U.S. forces found the bodies of two missing commandos.

KABUL, Jul 5 (MASNET & News Agencies) - Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai said he was "saddened and distressed" by the deaths of up to 17 people in a U.S. airstrike, as U.S. forces found the bodies of two missing commandos.

The Afghan government urged the U.S.-led coalition to change its tactics following Friday's bombing in Chichal village in the eastern province of Kunar bordering with Pakistan, which came amid a mission to rescue a team of four U.S. Special Forces soldiers, reports Agence France-Presse (AFP).

"The president is extremely saddened and distressed to hear the report that recent military operations in Kunar by the coalition forces resulted in the death of civilians," presidential spokesman Jawed Ludin told reporters Tuesday.

Karzai added that such deaths could not be justified, reports Reuters.

"There is no way, obviously, that the killings of civilians can be justified," Ludin told a news briefing. "It's the terrorists we are fighting. It's not our people who should suffer."

Ludin said the Afghan government had launched its own investigation into the bombing....."

You state "Attacking civilian populations ceased to be acceptable as of the end of WWII", then ignore the millions killed in Cambodia and Vietnam by carpet bombing.

You then presume that I need education? I have facts many facts....and by the way my life is not young, I bet I am a lot older than you are....

You visted Afghanistan when?

Re:The Definition of Terrorism is Easy

[thelizman]

This is a single example that doesn't support your assertion in any way. Your attempt to use misdirection is precisely what is wrong with people on your side of the issue. First of all, this air strike didn't involve a B-52 at all - as you had asserted. Secondly, this was not a deliberate targeting of civilians. I notice how you take liberties to avoid acknowledging how terrorists use civilians as shields. Its quite a double standard you adhere to.

Moreover, this is a singular isolated incident. I'm sure if you had "many" examples, you would have offered them up.

When you lie to yourself, you're the only one you convince.

A One Track Mind that is Derailed

[thelizman]

Who said anything killing innocents - mindless or otherwise?

And how is Bush not a Statesman? And how has the oil industry done anything to cloud his judgement?

You can start making sense, or you can keep parroting the political talking points your thought-masters spoon feed you.

Super Successful War On Terror

[yaweh]

I know most intelligent people have been aware of the idiocy of the war in Iraq, "fighting over there and not here". But by now I really believe that anyone still clinging to the idea that we would be safer spending all of our resources flaming a fire in another part of the world rather than "buttoning up" our defenses (military wise AND commercial) back home, has a serious short circuit in their ability to use reason, or events to shape their opinion or philosophy (whew).

So what's next? We will eventually secure the Iraq oil production industry (it's probably already the most secure element in Iraq), train the Iraqis to protect and pump our oil, then where will the fighting end up? By then we will have created FAR more enemies than we had before 9-11, and we will have a military bogged down overseas, not to mention a deficit of men and women to fill those boots. Not to mention the fact that we really out-foxed ourselves with the oil, 61 $/barrel.

On a somewhat brighter note, I have to say that I was impressed with the speach pm Blair gave after the attack. I can get kinda choked up when I hear a speach like that. I especially admire the purity in his sense of justice as he explicitly protected the morality of the vast mojority of Moslems, who indeed, also abhor terrorism. It takes a strong will to sustain injury and maintain your integrity. I believe that is one of England's finest characteristics.

Humanitarian, schmumanitarian

[GPS Pilot]

is incorrect to bring it up over a discussion about whether Iraq can be justified as a war for humanitarian purposes.

I never claimed that the Iraq war was waged for humanitarian purposes.

However, you were replying to a person who said our goals are "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".

That is a pretty good summary of the United States' current goals in Iraq.

Whether Osama is dead, incarcerated, or merely on the lam would make little difference to the effectiveness of al Qaeda's ongoing operations, so I would not support devoting a lot of additional resources toward hunting this one individual.

Re:Humanitarian, schmumanitarian

[Concern]

OK, here's how it looks to me. DS says:

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?

To which I say:

If we started with non-oil producers in greater need, people actually would believe that was what we were doing.

To which you say:

Um, we did.

But we didn't. And now you agree, and say:

I never claimed that the Iraq war was waged for humanitarian purposes.

OK, I guess you just misunderstood the thread. DS was making Iraq out to have humanitarian goals, and I've done a lot of reasoning here about what I think the problems with that viewpoint are - starting with that sentence.

"Um, we did" looks very much like a claim to the contrary.

Certainly, certainly, Bush did.

However, you were replying to a person who said our goals are "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".

That is a pretty good summary of the United States' current goals in Iraq.

And you admit it! Quote it even! I fear I am in for some Clinton-grade hair splitting.

I read that paragraph and I see it as a humanitarian justification for the war. Certainly, as opposed to "they're buying yellow cake," or "they were behind 9/11."

Whether Osama is dead, incarcerated, or merely on the lam would make little difference to the effectiveness of al Qaeda's ongoing operations, so I would not support devoting a lot of additional resources toward hunting this one individual.

Do you really, honestly believe anyone ever, at ny time, just advocated "going after only Osama" versus "going after Al Qaeda?" Well, you implied I did... I won't go so far as to imply in return that you're being deliberately dishonest or insulting. We routinely use "Osama" as a symbol for Al Qaeda the same way we use Bush as a symbol for America. I'll say it's an honest mistake. And suffice it to say, going after Al Qaeda, instead of going on a catastrophic military adventure in Iraq, creating the world's largest backlash, and playing right into the hands of Muslim Fascists who have been trying (largely unsuccessfully) to frighten people into the cause for years with wild tales about an American Invasion that are no longer so wild anymore... I can only support simply going after the people who actually want to hurt the U.S., rather than creating a greater danger with a crude attempt to build an oil producing empire.

Re:And the chickens come home to roost

[pudge]

if your fucking imperialist government would quit meddling in the affairs of others AND FUCKING RESPECT SOVERIEGN rights as promised by international law

Can you give one example of such a violation of international law? The Iraq invasion did not violate international law. Neither did Afghanistan. Got any other recent examples?

If you would really like to go over the actual law, we can. But the basic point is that the Gulf War never ended, and the U.S. and Iraq were both parties to a cease fire agreement that Iraq never complied with, and the U.S. therefore had every legal right to resume the hostilities.

You may consider that a technicality, but you're the one who brought up the law.

Besides, all your citizens are valid targets and participants in the war ... not innocent in the slightest.

Now, how is ignoring international law? According to all accepted treaties regarding warfare, civilian targets are not, in general, valid.

Maybe you should stop talking about "law" until you actually know what the law says?

Re:And the chickens come home to roost

[Jhon]

How can anyone even hope to have a rational discussion with you when you are coming from such a hate-filled place withing yourself? You are beyond reason. You've some how managed to blame the US for the most ridicules things imaginable such as blaming 'Americanization' for increased theft in the world.

I don't want to just come out and declare that you're a whack-job hate-filled spouter of anti-American jingoism, but that shoe is looking mighty comfy on your foot, pal...

always high security after attack

[yaweh]

And another thing, why do we always see super hightened levels of security only after an attack? Does this mean that when we don't see officers with mp5's and german shepards that we are not on guard against a possible attack? That doesn't make me feel very good. Why can't we be on guard all the time, in order to prevent another bombing, be it London, New York, Madrid, anywhere? And don't blame the unions or the mayor of your city, blame the federal gov't for spreading it's resources too thin.

Speeches

[danila]

Did anyone notice the eerie similarities between Blair's speeches and Bush's speeches 4 years ago? I think that by now any rational person should realise that we are being shamelessly manipulated by the establishment and the media and ignore these stories completely.

If you don't realise that, just ask yourself the simple question: Why is the media showing the so-called "news" from London almost non-stop (depending on the channel, it can probably amount to 50% of the airtime and even more)?

Again - why do they show so much of it? Think!

Possible answers:
1) People want gory entertainment and media provides it? Nope, there is no gore, just boring footage of London streets accompanies by sounds of sirens.
2) Everyone is genuinly concerned about people in London and media provides the information? Nope, there is no information to speak of (besides the sporadically updated bodycount and retelling of current rumours about latest gossip on why that happened).
3) This is an important even that warrants such coverage? Nope, this doesn't look even remotedly like it. A complete non-issue for almost everyone on this planet, except the victims and their friends and families.
4) The media is trying to manipulate us by turning us into a flock of obedient sheeps? If you chose this one, you are the winner.

Seriously, please mod all the "thoughts and prayers" morons down. They bother me.

Re:Speeches

[aslate]

1) People are interested in seeing what happened, i know that some of the footage of the bus was unbelievable, and today there was the first footage of one of the tube blasts.
2) There's lots of interest here, people can't get home, what will happen tomorrow, what's the tube network doing?
3) Yes, major terrorist attack in the UK, worst since the Lockerbie aircraft bombing in 1988, obviously not important.
4) Obedient to what exactly?

I think the BBC coverage was excellent, i was informed at school on TV and the net, on the way home via radio, and at home by the TV and net.

Re:Speeches

[danila]

First, let me say upfront that I don't know anything about BBC coverage. I had to sit through half and hour of Euronews and learned more than I would ever want to know (which wasn't much, actually). May be BBC had, through the magic of public television, some great coverage of these incidents, though I doubt it. Most other channels certainly don't.

And my question was different. I didn't ask you whether you were informed about this via all available channels - I asked why does the media (and the government) want to literally soak you in the news about these incidents.

1) How interested are they? Is the interest greater than can be met with a 1-hour evening program and 2 or 3 brief updates during the day if anything significant happens? I would have understood it if there was anything even remotedly interesting shown, but why do people find non-informative non-news interesting?
2) Well, I appreciate the interest of Londoners. But why does everyone else care that much? Why is the information about the exact number of dead people relevant to anyone anywhere? This seems to be the key issue! All journalists constantly ask each other: "is there any new information on the number of victims?" It's as if that number might have some special significance - I don't know, may be if it's an even number, then the terrorists win or something.
3) Again, this may be somewhat important for the Brits, but if you consider the loss of human life, it's negligible. Why isn't there 24h coverage of road accidents? In 1996 3600 people died in road accidents in Britain, which appears to be about 70% of all such deaths in Europe (!) (BBC). That's about 10 people each day. So it's like a similar scale disaster happens every week. Where is the warranted coverage?
4) Obedient to authority, of course. If you are not given the important information, are not allowed to judge what is important by yourself and are constantly distracted with manufactured (or carefully chosen) news, you can't oppose the oppressive power. You are fed on a news diet that was carefully chosen to produce an obedient sheep. If you faithfully consume the media diet, you can't even think of anything that is outside the "sanctioned" news. That's mind control at its finest. It seems the paranoid nuts talking about mind control rays were up to something - after all, the electromagnetic radiation that carries TV is something eerily similar.

Re:Speeches

[yaweh]

why did that high school in the south show the nicholas berg beheading in class? the bolster and fortify the war effort.

Re:Islam is a cancer

[uptoeleven]

> Catholics don't go around killing people unless they are attacked.

???????????

careful fella you nearly made me choke on my matzah.

Re:You confuse downtrodden with religious

[DECS]

Your circular reasoning conveniently ignored much of what I said about how faith is defined by those who have faith.

You also conveniently ignore that much of what we understand about our Universe, we are unable to actually test. We create models for understanding things we can't actually observe, and infer much of what we know about them by the perceived effects they have on other things. We believe we know lots of things, based on reasoning and inferrance.

Using my previous analogy, if you buy a house, there is "no test you can do to conclusively prove" that your title will maintain ownership of that property for your grandchildren after you die; you can only exercise faith in the rule of law to have the hope that the work you did while alive will survive to benefit your heirs.

I have no business or interest in trying to get you to exercise faith in anything. I'm merely saying you are foolish to regard faith as the opposite of rational thought, and suggest that faith is never based on knowledge but is only a result of ignorance.

My original point was that showing hatred for things you don't understand is the core reason for much of the violence and bloodshed in our world. The fact that you step around that order to reaffirm for yourself that your contented and enlightened existence is entirely due to your superiority over people who view the world differently doesn't refute that; it rather makes it more obvious.

It's like suggesting to the KKK that maybe they are missing something, and having them, in their defense, just spew out the same garbage again about their superiority, citing circular definitions of what being the master race is all about.

I fail to see any point in further explaining the nature of faith, as a trust based upon knowledge and experience, when you simply ignore rather than refute my definition, and reiterate what your faithless peers want it to mean so as to protect your illusion of the world.

Also, thanks for the distracting straw man argument, but most people don't "seem to miss what science is," because it is pretty simple to understand most concrete ideas. What most people 'fail to understand' are abstract concepts that require higher reasoning skills, that can't be reduced to a simple sound byte.

As for Einstein, I said he believed in a supreme being, not in a Christian God. This was because he appreciated the order in nature. He also quite famously said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

And you can make Newton a puppet for whatever you like to believe, but the fact is that he was fervently religious and expressed his discoveries quite obviously in that context.

17th Century atheists had no more to hide than present day academics who have faith.

Atheists are just fundamentalist agnostics, following the pattern of all tenants of belief: the many are ringed by a loud, obnoxious and arrogant extremist minority.

Re:What will the EU do?

[danila]

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.

That's what every son and daughter of a drug lord or a mafia boss tells him/herself.

There are no countries that "haven't kept pace with the prosperity of the Western world". There are countries that were exploited by the Western world. The prosperity of the Western world is built on the blood and sweat of the world poor. And your high standard of living is being daily maintained by the exploitation of the world by Western corporations.

No matter what spin you put on it, you are immediately responsible for the suffering of the poor and daily deaths from hunger, unless you stop benefiting from the exploitation (that is, reduce your consumption and reduce a significant chunk of your income to the exploited countries in the form of contributions to charities).

to whit

[uptoeleven]

Guns don't kill Jews, Catholics do

For expulsion read massacre and expulsion. The vast majority of these activities (which clearly didn't involve anybody killing Jews unless they were attacked NOT) were carried out by Catholics. Most Protestants were a bit more easy going with the idea of forgivenes...

it cuts both ways mate

[uptoeleven]

The British are the butt of many a French joke too, we just can't understand them... ;)

Re:And the chickens come home to roost

[Eol1]

Can you give one example of such a violation of international law? The Iraq invasion did not violate international law. Neither did Afghanistan. Got any other recent examples?
While the UN is not international law per sae, we are a member and like to abuse it to our own means to look good. Try reading Chapter 1 of the charter. Here are some key quotes:

"1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;"

UN never approved NATO invasions of Kosovo or Afghansistan. UN never approved (other than American doubletalk) the COW invasion of Iraq.

"2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"

Like we did with Grenada, Panama, and Vietnam. How about us conveniently ignoring the Palestinians, the Kurds, the Basque, the Catalans.

"3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and"

Like our rabid policy of not funding 3rd world sex or HIV education because it promotes the use of condoms (evil non-Christian sex oh my!!!)

"Article 2 The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

Just like we respected the SOVERIGNITY of the Iraq government, the Afghans, the Vietnamese, Yugoslavia.

"3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!! Yeah, Amerika is big on that one.

As for other international law, how about the Geneva condition and treatment of prisoners. How about not killing civilians (oh wait..its ok to kill innocent iraqi's but not them us)...its ok for us to parade Iraqi prisoners on TV but not them us. How about international maritime law and the Monroe Doctrine or the regular use of US naval power in international waters to detain drug and arms ships outside our jurisdiction.

"According to all accepted treaties regarding warfare, civilian targets are not, in general, valid."

Yet its ok to kill indiscriminately Iraqi citizens because they are sandniggers. I have worked in Baghdad for 6 months now and sitting around the chow halls you here soldiers left and right joking about shooting those sand niggers just because they wanted to. You see gate guards shoot kids for throwing rocks. See convoys blow passenger cars up because they approached closer than 100 meters (though its hard to read the stay back sign from farther than 40 meters because of its small print). A good pilot friend of mine said it best, "a that new high speed 500lbs bomb maybe smart and able to hit a toilet, but its still a fucking 500lb bomb with one hell of a kill radius"

People get me wrong, I am not AGAINST this shit. Might makes right and that has always been the law of the land, to the spoils go the victory, and the history books are written by the winner BUT I hate the hypocrisy of it. If we want to play bully and kill folk for no reason other than personal whim, that fine; but we need to fess up to it ... not try and hide it behind some glorious lie. Goebels would be p

Re:Osama Bin Laden: "freedom-less fighter"

[danila]

There is an interesting analogy. Let's consider Peter the Great, the greatest Russian emperor, who modernized and westernised the country in 18th century and is widely respected overall.

Under Peter the Great: under the threat of a fine, men were require NOT to wear beards, Western music and entertainment was ingrafted, noble women and men were required to wear western clothing, secular Western dancing was promoted and nobility was forced to attend Western balls, and so on. The Peter the Great's regime had total disregard for the heritage of Russia.

From my point of view, lack of freedom does not by itself mean that the situation is bad. For example, women in the USA (in most states) are required to cover their breasts and if they expose them in public, they are arrested for indecent exposure and fined. How is that qualitatively different from the Taliban regime?

You need to examine things in a broader context and pay special attention to the nature of the measures. The Afghan society of the 21st century is not a place where great personal liberties are expected and so the actions of Taliban are not very surprising or unusual. They are bad, however, but for an entirely different reason - because they lead to greater religious influence on society and not modernisation. But the same can be said about the United States - the same crimes are committed by the established order, although withing a different, more "liberal" Western framework.

Re:who cares?

[yaweh]

majoroty of deaths in iraq are civilian, by far - fact

Re:And the chickens come home to roost

[Eol1]

You again :) ... not blaming the US for an increase it theft. I am blaming the US for an increase in petty theft and social acceptance of it. You just don't see much petty theft in Saudi where they chop their hands off. If you are going to risk life and limb, you steal big. Normal folk do not really need to worry about their personal property been stolen.

I like how if you critize the USA you are a hate-fill spouter of anti-American jingoism but if you critize North Korea or Iran you are a good patriotic america. Do as we say, not as do; right. As for hate filled, not really. I live a nice relaxing life outside the US. Its just when I am around Americans (as I am currently) I lose my mind. Just can't deal with the modern america me me me can't play in nice in the sandbox with others culture. Granted I am biased in that I spend 99% of my American time with soldiers but they represent a good cross section of america. Nothing like having a fat fucking troll chick soldier screaming at me to slow down as I blow by her in my car or tells me I can't where sandles in the chow hall while her fat ass is breaking those same army regs by not passing a PT test, overweight, and having sex (violating gen order 1). Americans have a fucking serious do as I say, not as I do problem. And before crying about how this is an anti American stereotype, serious try traveling and quit just saying I am wrong. It is an american problem and becomes more and more of issue in other countries as they americanize.

That reminds me of this one time...

[zardo]

reminds me of the time I got on a horse drawn wagon ride with a group of people, I asked the driver "If this thing tips over can I sue you?", he made me get off and gave me a refund.

Haha, that was funny. Good times.

Re:I Upset the racist club ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No , I am a real American From CANADA.

Put a sock in it. You are emberassing the rest of us.

Re:Respond with more force

[M3rk1n_Muffl3y]

It will work great till they find out where you live, then they will bomb you. Then you will ahve to bomb them again. See how it's not going to work?

Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately

[zardo]

There were a lot of people liberated when the berlin wall fell that could explain the price of freedom to you. Research some of the countless civil wars fought all over the world and it might shed some light on the subject of freedom. The brainless drones are the ones who never fought for anything.

Bodycount

[AngusL]

The death toll now stands at 49, with it expected to rise to above 50. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4663931.stm This was a horrible incident, I followed it from the minute I had my morning BBC News stream interrupted by a news flash to the minute I went to sleep. How people can claim to do this in the name of any religion or cause is beyond me... They kill people regardless of any category which could be applied. The racist response against Muslims is unacceptable, with over 30,000 offensive emails being received by the Muslim Council within hours of the attacks.

Re:And the chickens come home to roost

[pudge]

While the UN is not international law per sae [sic]

Well, no, UN agreements, including the charter, most certainly do constitute international law. But we didn't violate any UN accepted rules.

At the top, you are quoting the aims of the UN, not obligations of its member states, and so I won't bother directly responding to any of those quotes, as they have no relevance.

UN never approved NATO invasions of Kosovo or Afghansistan. UN never approved (other than American doubletalk) the COW invasion of Iraq.

Well, that's the point, the UN *did* approve of the Gulf War, *which never ended*. Again, this is what the law says. It's not about doubletalk, it's the actual law. And yes, the UN did not approve those other invasions, but *no one* in the UN seriously contended they were illegal, which only proves the point: the UN has never consistently held aggression as a violation of the UN charter, and does so only when it suits them to, because they happen to disagree with a particular engagement. This sucks the force out of what few and vague rules the UN has on the subject.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

Just like we respected the SOVERIGNITY of the Iraq government, the Afghans, the Vietnamese, Yugoslavia.

That respect is not absolute, and the UN charter never intends it to be, as the right of self-defense is also defined in the same charter, which almost everyone agrees gave the U.S. the right to invade Afghanistan (for example).

Note well:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations ...

"3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

Again, this is never intended to be absolute. Where was the uproar over the supposed illegality of Kosovo? There wasn't any, not from the UN member states.

As for other international law, how about the Geneva condition and treatment of prisoners.

This is shifting the goalposts. You were talking about the illegality of the invasions, and that is what I responded to. I won't respond to changes of subject.

The weird part is that you didn't quote the parts of the UN charter that actually makes a real case against what the U.S. did. For example:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Of course, it was the UN's own top weapons inspector, Hans Blix, who said the U.S. threats -- supposedly barred here -- were useful and good, and without which what little cooperation Iraq offered pre-invasion would not have even been possible. And that's the sort of problems you have: the UN arbitrarily enforces its own charter, which means when they do want to enforce it, they are unable to.

Just like how they promised the world, and the U.S., they would force Iraq to comply, back in 1991, with the cease-fire resolution, and never did, which is what brought us to the invasion in 2003. It was the direct result of the UN's failure to properly force Iraqi compliance over 12 years, and the last nail in the coffin of worldwide respect for the ability of the UN to actually do anything useful in such matters.

Re:And the chickens come home to roost

[GypC]

How would you feel if France invaded the US over WMD's and human rights?

Hmmm, that would have to be somewhere between "amused pity" and "grim sympathy".

Besides, all your citizens are valid targets and participants in the war

What about our sovereign rights, then?

Re:Stick to what you know boys and girls

[hendersj]

Oh, and what's that, IYHO?

All I was saying was that you need to practise what you preach. ;-)

Re:And the chickens come home to roost

[Eol1]

There are no sovereign rights in war, just multiple parties trying to win. Just pointing out that citizens of a warring party (to include theirs) are not innocent nor noncombatants. You are guilty of material support if nothing else and last I checked, logistics are valid military targets.

Re:And the chickens come home to roost

[pudge]

when I am around Americans ... I lose my mind. Just can't deal with the modern america me me me can't play in nice in the sandbox with others culture.

Wait ... you can't deal with a culture that can't deal with other cultures?

Uh-huh.

Pull the other one.

Re:And the chickens come home to roost

[Eol1]

Nobody said I'm perfect :) .... but not sure this is hypocrypsy. Its like stating you are pro-life but support kill abortion doctors. Its all about the greater good. Its hard to find absolutes in social and belief contructs, too easy to find sole exceptions. A single exception does not break the rule though in a social constructs. If everybody on the planet was proven to believe 1+1=2 and one sole guy thought 1+1=3, doesn't invalidate 1+1=2 nor the statements that everybody believes 1+1=2 even if logically wrong.

Re:And the chickens come home to roost

[pudge]

Nevertheless, the point is that I couldn't care less if you think someone else is black, when you're covered in soot yourself.

Re:go study humanity.

[rodrigo96]

The Middle East will be reunited once the colonial powers (UK, USA) suck dry all the oil under their territories. Only then they will be allowed to go back to camel-tourism the desert! Enough diatribe about religion and power-hungry ayatollahs! Every single war is about power and grabing other people's property. Seems that the Colonial Era of humankind is not over yet.

Re:And the chickens come home to roost

[Eol1]

Suprised to find we agree on the major points, just interpet them differently.

But we didn't violate any UN accepted rules.

I would agree with this stated solely because US unilateralism is a UN accepted rule and the world cannot afford economically to boycott us the way to impose on others. It was accepted blacks were subhuman also, doesn't make it right or legal.

Well, that's the point, the UN *did* approve of the Gulf War, *which never ended*. Again, this is what the law says. It's not about doubletalk, it's the actual law.

Negative on this one and you need to read the treaty ending the war. GW1 ended in a peace treating (and estabilished postwar sactions simliarly to the Treaty of Versaille(?sp) on Germany WWI. Your statement is like saying if France invaded Germany in 1939 it would not have been WWII, but a continuation of WWI. The only official armistace in the last 20 years I am aware of is the US and Korean.

And yes, the UN did not approve those other invasions, but *no one* in the UN seriously contended they were illegal,

Agree because even though no body likes to admit it openly, they are fond of the US doing their dirty work, that which they do not have the political will to do.
which only proves the point: the UN has never consistently held aggression as a violation of the UN charter, and does so only when it suits them to, because they happen to disagree with a particular engagement. This sucks the force out of what few and vague rules the UN has on the subject.

Agreed but in doing so, the US needs to quit using it to justify their actions. Just honestly admit they are doing it unilateral reasons. Regardless of political niceties, it is still deception even if everybody already knows it. The problem here is the sheeple of Amerika are unaware and actually believe the US is complying with international law as opposed to breaking internation law in socially acceptable ways.

That respect is not absolute, and the UN charter never intends it to be, as the right of self-defense is also defined in the same charter,
Intent is not the same as as written. To vague and open to interpertation and leads to abuse and ineffectiveness. On a personal note here, I am a firm believe in absolute sovereign rights for the record.

which almost everyone agrees gave the U.S. the right to invade Afghanistan (for example).

I would disagree with that statement, especially in the Muslim world, US academia, and european students and intelligentia. We fully reconginzed the Taliban government and were working trading agreements with them, they were no rogue nation (whereas Iran we have no formal relationship with). We no more had the right to invade Afghanistan to capture a criminal than we the right to invade Panama to capture a drug dealer or Canada for refusing to extradite a vietnam war deserter. We may of had the right in a absolute soveriegn nation sort of way, but not in compliance with international law.

Where was the uproar over the supposed illegality of Kosovo? There wasn't any, not from the UN member states.

You are wrong on that one. Greece, Russia, and most Slavic nations had a major uproar over this. The Russians in defiance of NATO flew their BiH contigent into Pristina and captured (let in) the airport hours before NATO took it. The west may not of had an uproar but the east did.

This is shifting the goalposts. You were talking about the illegality of the invasions, and that is what I responded to. I won't respond to changes of subject.

Fair enough

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Al Queda was not a UN member, Afghanistan was. Iraq did not threated or use force in GW2,

Re:And the chickens come home to roost

[Eol1]

Missing the fine point here, I agree with the pot calling the kettle black argument. Thats not my point. Stating I hate a culture that doesn't respect other cultures nor leave them alone. Not stating I hate a culture that hates other cultures. Fine line but different point nevertheless.

Re:And the chickens come home to roost

[pudge]

I would agree with this stated solely because US unilateralism is a UN accepted rule and the world cannot afford economically to boycott us the way to impose on others.

But it is actual fact that UN rules do not prohibit anything we did. You're still trying to make it sound like they do, but those rules are just ignored because we're the U.S. No, that is not true.

Negative on this one and you need to read the treaty ending the war.

I am not at all wrong, and I have read UN Security Council Resolution 687 many times. You're the one who needs to read it. It nowhere implies the war has ended, but states explicitly that it is merely a cease-fire. Any peace to be found is dependent on the fulfillment of the provisions of the resolution by all parties, most particularly Iraq, which never happened.

See especially 1. and 33., and 34., which notes that the UN not only reserves the right to take further action if Iraq does not fulfill its obligations, but actually takes obligates itself to take action to ensure Iraq's compliance.

Agreed but in doing so, the US needs to quit using it to justify their actions.

Well, Bush preferred to do just that, but it was decided it would be better to go through the UN. It's probably a wash: on the one hand, you lend too much credibility to the UN to go through it, but on the other, people actually do give the UN a lot of credibility.

Just honestly admit they are doing it unilateral reasons.

Except, of course, that it was not remotely unilateral, having the significant support of most of Iraq's neighbors, and Australia and Great Britain (among others, but those are the most important).

Unless you mean that the U.S. would have felt it had the right to do it even if it had to go alone: there's no doubt of that, and no U.S. official speaking for the President has ever said anything otherwise. When 1441 was signed in late 2002, the U.S. officials said they would not require the approval or cooperation of anyone else in order to act against Iraq. I don't know what more "honesty" you want.

The problem here is the sheeple of Amerika are unaware and actually believe the US is complying with international law as opposed to breaking internation law in socially acceptable ways.

It actually *is* complying with international law, and you have yet to show otherwise.

To vague and open to interpertation and leads to abuse and ineffectiveness.

That's fine, but the point is that it is vague and open to interpretation, and the UN has no real way of giving a legal finding about it, not one that is binding on anyone, except through the Security Council, which the U.S. has a veto over.

On a personal note here, I am a firm believe in absolute sovereign rights for the record.

So you don't believe in the right of self-defense. Noted.

We fully reconginzed the Taliban government and were working trading agreements with them, they were no rogue nation (whereas Iran we have no formal relationship with).

So what if they were an established government? How does that follow that we didn't have the right to invade? It doesn't follow, at all.

We no more had the right to invade Afghanistan to capture a criminal than we the right to invade Panama to capture a drug dealer or Canada for refusing to extradite a vietnam war deserter.

Those comparisons are stupid. The Taliban were actually protecting and aiding al Qaeda. al Qaeda didn't "just happen" to be in their country.

We may of had the right in a absolute soveriegn nation sort of way, but not in compliance with international law.

You keep saying that, but it is not remotely true, and you have provided not a jot of evidence supporting it. It was perfectly legal.

Al Queda was not a UN member, Afghanistan was.

So? What's that got to do with anything?

Iraq di

Re:You confuse downtrodden with religious

[huge colin]

You also conveniently ignore that much of what we understand about our Universe, we are unable to actually test. We create models for understanding things we can't actually observe, and infer much of what we know about them by the perceived effects they have on other things. We believe we know lots of things, based on reasoning and inferrance.

Regardless of how much there is that we understand and have not directly tested, we have evidence to support certain explanations. I hope you're not comparing religious belief to science just because there are some things in science that we can't be quite sure of. Religion doesn't even come close to actually knowing anything. It pretends, and it fails.

Using my previous analogy, if you buy a house, there is "no test you can do to conclusively prove" that your title will maintain ownership of that property for your grandchildren after you die; you can only exercise faith in the rule of law to have the hope that the work you did while alive will survive to benefit your heirs.

That's a terrible analogy. You can't prove that there is inherent worth in a title, because there is no inherent worth in it. "Having faith" that the law will protect its value is a completely different usage of the word 'faith' than "having faith" that a god exists. One usage means something like "hoping" and the other means "believing in spite of no evidence".

I have no business or interest in trying to get you to exercise faith in anything. I'm merely saying you are foolish to regard faith as the opposite of rational thought, and suggest that faith is never based on knowledge but is only a result of ignorance.

As I explained in the previous paragraph, you're apparently considering some alternate definition of 'faith' that doesn't apply to religious belief. This is what we're talking about, from The American Heritage Dictionary:

faith, n. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

And that right there is the result of ignorance, and the opposite of rational thought.

My original point was that showing hatred for things you don't understand is the core reason for much of the violence and bloodshed in our world. The fact that you step around that order to reaffirm for yourself that your contented and enlightened existence is entirely due to your superiority over people who view the world differently doesn't refute that; it rather makes it more obvious.

Oh, I don't show any hatred for things I don't understand. Fortunately, I understand why people believe in religion, and I understand why religion is a terrible thing. I am a bit upset that people "view the world differently" than I do, but not because their view is different -- because their view is wrong. Before you tell me that their opinions are just as valid as mine, better read up on 'science': there are no opinions in physics. There are facts.

It's like suggesting to the KKK that maybe they are missing something, and having them, in their defense, just spew out the same garbage again about their superiority, citing circular definitions of what being the master race is all about.

It's pretty clear that you're comparing the reasoning of atheists to the reasoning of KKK members because unsupported belief systems cannot be successfully defended.

I fail to see any point in further explaining the nature of faith, as a trust based upon knowledge and experience, when you simply ignore rather than refute my definition, and reiterate what your faithless peers want it to mean so as to protect your illusion of the world.

It's funny that you say my view of the world is the one that is 'illusionary' when those of religious persuasions believe in gods and spirits and pixies and invisible pink u

Wow.

[Fantastic Lad]

Your stated 'case' consists of 3 irrelevancies: dancing israeli's, investigations you didn't like, and a passport on a pile of rubble.

The first is an assumption of intent and purpose (and provides no linkage to those responsible to taking over the planes), the second is an opinion that I don't share, and the third doesn't even seem sinister. There was paper fluttering down for hours after the event - that one stapled booklet of paper ended up towards the top instead of the bottom isn't shocking.

Wow. That's some amazingly weak thinking.

1. How do you explain a group of Israelis having a camera set up to tape the events of 9/11 as it happened and then dancing with joy after the fact? You call it unrelated, an assumption of intent with no linkage to those responsible for the attacks, which while strictly accurate doesn't do anything to invalidate the question. How do you rationally explain them? --And saying that there were also people dancing in the Middle East too is, I'm afraid, not a rational argument. Nor is simply repeating that the dancers are 'irrelevant' and that they prove nothing, (and then folding your arms with a defiant pout?). That's how five year-olds argue.

2. You were satisfied with the 9/11 investigations, despite the destruction of evidence, the refusals of the Bush administration to participate and the lack of proper explanations for all the various holes in the official story? I don't even know what to say.

3. Think: That passport was supposedly compacted inside a crashing airplane, then exploded in a fireball and allowed to burn for fifteen minutes or so. Then it was brought down inside a collapsing office tower. And you're telling me you think it is reasonable that it should appear undamaged on top of the rubble heap? Again. I don't even know what to say without resorting to the kinds of insults a five year-old might offer your intelligence.

Honestly. If you are truly invested in your statements, then you are either very stupid, or you are in total denial, in which case you are FAR beyond any help I might offer.

You can only see the world as it is if you choose to.

The trouble is that embracing lies defines one's spiritual path in a very destructive way. --Seeking the lower self ultimately results in the final dissolution of the soul. The soul is there to experience life. To hide from life within comfortable fabrications is to deny existence.

-FL

Ignorance.

[Fantastic Lad]

Out of the hundreds of people that read my first reply only a handful bothered to respond to something they interpreted as a challenge rather than a simple fact of life. I guess you were not one of the smarter ones. My post simply says, if you don't know shit then don't speak more shit.

Jeez. You're calling my intelligence into question?

Look. You fell for the big lie and now you're carrying a gun and thinking you're fighting the good fight against bad people. You are a tool. I've had numerous opportunities to speak with people working in high level international politics, and I can tell you that you are privately laughed at for having been stupid enough to have fallen for the lie. You are a tool. You are being used. You are not defending the world. You are being used to destroy it. I am the one who knows what he is talking about. You are the one swimming in ignorance. The game of war and politics is primarily about getting other people to die for you so that you can make money and gain power. This is why the Middle East threat was manufactured by consent and agreement.

-FL

Re:Respond with more force

[M3rk1n_Muffl3y]

That's how problems start not how they end. An eye for an eye will make the world blind.

Al-Quida lost this one!

[Puba the Fool]

This one goes down as a loss for Al-Quida. With all due respect to those killed and injured, the London attack actually seems weak. There have been three major attacks on western soil, 9/11, Madrid and now London. Each has been progressively weaker. The first killed thousands. The second killed hundreds. This one has killed dozens. But the primary loss for Al-Quida is that they have lost any sense of moral supremacy. When the world is debating Abu Grav and Guantanamo, it is clear that just randomly and deliberately killing people who are uninvolved is far worse. Leaving time bombs on public transport to kill people who are just trying to go to work to provide for themselves and their families is obviously morally bankrupt. The problem originates in a sense of tribalism. The thinking goes like this "If I think someone has done something wrong then it is OK for me to exact my revenge on someone from the same tribe. If I can't punish the person who did the apparent wrong then I will punish someone who looks like him, or lives near him, or has a similar philosophy. This will make me feel better and appease my rage and sense of injustice." There is another way that this represents a loss for Al-Quida. Just when the G8 leaders were going to disagree about aid and global warning (and thus appear weak and uncaring) now they are all in solidarity against terrorism and their differences don't mater. What were they thinking? Did they expect London of all places to be cowered by this despicable type of action? Many residents of London still remember the blitz. In that case the people of London crawled out of the wreckage and collectively gave Hitler the finger. When you see a group of people who are willing to commit mass murder of innocent men, women and children as a way of making a political point, all you can do is steel your resolve to never, never, never let these people win, regardless of the cost and the sacrifice.

Re:Al-Quida lost this one!

[yaweh]

that's it, deny eveything, right? even when you get your teeth kicked in. do me a favor, keep comments like these, that belittle the deaths of innocent civilians, to yourself. no one with a brain would support you in your attempts at making the killing of over 50 people traveling to work an unimportant or "non-event". and another thing, if you think that this is the worse they can do, then you are even dumber than your post indicates. the british authorities have stated that this event was executed without the slightest notable increase in counter-intelligence chatter. they cant even figure out what kind of explosives were used or how they were detonated. the worst is yet to come, and they are saving the worst for the US.

the most dangerous enemy is one with nothing to lose. he also has all the time in the world to wait for his moment when backs are turned if for a second. he is also equipped with religious programing, the variety that lead millions of germans, blindly, without moral reason, into world war II. he is a perfect tool of death, more so than any marine with a family. and these enemies are everywhere, waiting, planning, thousands of them. they are in iraq, "working for us", they are in NY, London, DC, all over the world. and they are dangerous beyond your seemingly limited comprehension. and here you go, idiot american, underestimating your enemy, you fool.

Re:Al-Quida lost this one!

[Puba the Fool]

I do not deny the event or belittle it.

I refer to it as "mass murder of innocent men, women and children".

It is still a moral and public relation failure for the terrorists.

It persuaded no one that they were right.

It also failed to terrorize (except for you apparently). The brave people of London are back to work. The financial markets are recovering.

There will be more and worse attacks, and they are extremely dangerous, but they will not succeed in their goal to undermine our society or to accept their twisted world view.

By the way you really should work on the hostility thing. Do you think you have a right to demand that others not express their ideas? Especially when you don't seem to read them in the first place? I understand that you may not agree with me about something but I also suspect that you are not an idiot. I do not think that calling you an idiot would make your ideas less persuasive. Anyway I wish you well.

Re:Al-Quida lost this one!

[yaweh]

hey, i just call it as i see it. i prefer to argue over a post than agree, thats just me. no offense, its just that our society is being undermined. this is the part that drives me nuts. maybe you dont live in the city, you dont know what its like, you just watch foxnews and you think you know, but you dont know. spend some time in my neck of the woods, IT IS TENSE, because we know there is more to come, more for our children in endure, and you are trying to tell me that that isnt enough to undermine a fragile society like ours. guerilla warfare is ugly business. americans really need to start thinking about self-preservation. we need to expect the worse. with your attitude the cities will collapse before you even admit the terrorists had an effect. and like i said before, the strain is already taking its toll. and im no coward, but if you are not scared, then you are unaware of whats going on.

Re:Al-Quida lost this one!

[Puba the Fool]

What do you recommend that we do? What action should be taken to improve the situation? Do you think it's hopeless?

Re:Al-Quida lost this one!

[yaweh]

ive been thinking for over 2 years now that the iraq invasion isnt going to help our situation back home. the world trade center attack was a signal that the us really needed to overhaul its airline industry, for starters, and while 15 billion has been spent over the past 3 years to do so, only 250 million has been spent nation wide to beef up our transit system. and how many billions have been spent on iraq? with the money that was spent in iraq, we could have provided a safe environment for american citizens within the continental united states. the iraq war is not about defending the dirty masses from the enemy that hides itself, that has no particular national affiliation. the iraqi war in it execution, takes into account that americans are going to die, here and abroad. the iraqi war is more about domination than simple carefully laid plans to secure our borders, our industries. god forbid we should ask anything of our nations industries to help see to it that they are not used as weapons by a group of terrorists.

you know what i really think is odd, maybe you could explain it to me. why is it, that with the oil for food scandal, and saddam hussein making so many 10's of billions of dollars off of under-the-table oil sales, that the 9-11 commision ultimately could not find that saddam had anything to do with either negotiating with or funding groups like al-queda? why were we unable to prove his connection to al-queda? we believe that al-queda gets alot of its funding from oil. this was, i believe, a strong hawkish reason for invading and taking control of iraq. BUT, there was really no evidence that funding for al-queda came from iraq, in fact, it was rather proved by the 9-11 commision that saddam turned down solicitations, proposals or requests from al-queda.

i guess my real question is, why is iraq such a "strategic" strike? is the oil grab in iraq merely to benefit our economy? 61 $/barrel isnt so great for americans, it's good for american petroleum corps, to be sure. maybe the real benefit of staking a claim in such a large oil resource as iraqs is the fact that we can now raise the price of OUR oil. at any rate, how will iraqs invasion help prevent an attack in the us? will making the us economy even larger help prevent a terrorist attack, or will providing protection from a terrorist attack help defend against a terrorist attack? because the "fight them over there not here", is just some bullshit the american populace has been told, it has nothing to do with the reasoning in going to war with iraq. wmd is another good one, so much in fact of what most americans understand about iraq has nothing to do with the real reasons we invaded iraq, i believe. so what is it all about?

Re:Al-Quida lost this one!

[Puba the Fool]

I'm not sure I follow everything you're saying but I think we actually agree on a lot.

The money spent in Iraq is a waste. The Iraq war has no economic benefit to the US. The Iraq war was also a strategic mistake, but having made that mistake, backing out now might be another mistake.

Saddam Hussein is scum, but had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. In fact as a secular Arab leader he was a natural enemy of Al-Qaeda. He also apparently had no WMD's.

I have no idea why we went to war with Iraq. It could be that Saddam tried to kill Bush's dad. Also it could be that the neo-conservatives were planning to take on Iraq even before 9/11. It could also be that Saddam was bluffing and pretending to have WMD's with his cat and mouse games with the UN inspectors. His position was always kind of strange. "We have no WMD's but if you attack us we'll use them on you." In fact we know he had WMD's at one time because he used them on the Kurds and the Iranians. He claimed they were all destroyed but would not or could not document their destruction.

The truth is that he was surrounded by enemies, the Kurds to the north and the Iranians to the east and the Shiites to the south. Also Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were not happy with him because of the Kuwait invasion. So Saddam may have felt that he had to a least bluff that he had WMD's. This may go down as the worst bluff in modern history, if it turns out that this is why Bush invaded Iraq.

It's very very hard to defend against terrorism, we have to protect every point, and they only have to attack at one point. As much as possible we have to attack them. I just wish we were smarter about it. The good thing about democracy is that eventually you get rid of bad leaders.

Anyway don't worry too much about terrorism. Do what you can do about things that you can do and don't worry about the rest. Your chance of being killed by terrorists is very low. You are at more risk from just crossing the street, or driving a car. My advice is to look both ways and use your turn signals and don't think too much about terrorists. There will always be the "chicken littles". There are people who kind of want things to get worse because it will shake things up and things are not going so well for them currently so they figure that shaking things up may be better. I've got bad news for them, there will be set backs, but essentially everything is going to be fine, civilization will continue and flourish. Art, science, technology, culture, medicine and even politics and human relationships are all going to undergo continuous wonderful positive transformations and life will be better for everyone.

If not I'll apologize and admit that I was wrong!

Good luck.

Re:Al-Quida lost this one!

[yaweh]

i actually agree with everything you said, i missed judged you initially. i guess thats how it goes :)

Re:You confuse downtrodden with religious

[DECS]

I'm not interested in a religious discussion.

I'm commenting on a thread the demanded to know when atheists ever caused wars.

Your reply suggested that atheism is somehow vastly different that other belief systems, simply because no belief in god is involved, and then added that lacking faith automatically made atheists superior.

I commented that first, the world has "religions" that don't include a belief in god, and really atheism is no better than any another religion in that it's just a belief system that gets people militant and divides the world, and has been involved in (and directed) plenty of war and atrocities.

Second, I said your definition of faith failed to describe how faith can be exercised. I gave both a definition from a religious authority (a definition that would be better suited in a religious discussion than a general purpose dictionary, but nice try), and a secular example of how society exercises faith outside the realm of spirituality.

I think you have problems understanding abstract ideas. You get lost in the simple analogy of a document backed by the "full faith of the government," and somehow confuse the value of a title deed with the idea it represents.

A title deed is indeed a worthless bit a paper if the entity that issues it cannot be trusted to back up the idea of private property ownership rights. That's why we exercise faith in a system that makes currency, securities and title deeds worth something abstract that is of far more value than the simple paper fibers and ink that comprise them.

Are you too simple to understand that defining words is a prerequisite to having a meaningful discussion of ideas, or are you just trying to be a jackass?

As long as you insist that faith can only be credulity, and that secular faith in abstract ideas is somehow an entirely separate idea, I'll have to let you return to your self congratulatory throne of pretentious ignorance.

I'm not defending religiousness, and certainly, as I noted, belief systems have often been used to do horrible wrongs. The thing is that atheism has done nothing to reform humanity, bring civility or peace, or elevate morality or solve anything.

As you demonstrate, it is just another religion that enables simple people to march in step and look down on fellow humans.

Athiest is to agnostic what right wing fanatic jesus freak is to mainstream casually religious America, or what jihad terrorist is to the greater Islamic world.

Loud, obnoxious and arrogant extremist minority.

Thanks for looking up NSF's proof that the world is mostly stupid, because we didn't know that before.

Also, no you are wrong; there are plenty of options in science, and everything isn't a fact. If it were, we wouldn't have to research and apply the scientific method looking for truth, as we'd just know everything. Science is our understanding of the world around us, not the power to define reality.

As much as I can't stand religious nuts, I have to say that atheists are nearly as fucking annoying in their fundamentalist, narrow, ignorant and arrogant view of the world.

Sounds like a fanatical religion to me.

Re:First Post

[m50d]

No, I pulled it from my history textbook. It was a sort of offhand thing (the whole Spanish civil war coverage was only a couple of pages) but I assumed it would be accurate. Obviously not.

Re:Bliar cries crocodile tears

[vandan]

an inquiry proved that the war was not actually an illegal war.

Yes it's called a whitewash. What do you expect when the people doing the investigating were appointed by the people who are the target of the investigation. I think you'll find public opinion is very much against you on this one, 'inquiry' or not.

So you admit to having a chip on your shoulder. I don't have a chip, I'm just fed up with your attitude.

Once again you are demonstating the characteristics you are describing, while I don't believe I'm displaying any of them. Perhaps your subconsious is trying to tell you something, and you're projecting it onto me?

"You have a chip. I don't have a chip. You're fucked. I'm great". Sounds pretty stupid, eh? Well it's taken straight from the horse's mouth. So remove that chip from your shoulder and that foor from your mouth and get back on topic.

In the face of such a disaster people like you see fit to throw blame around and say that it was a justified response, it wasn't.

Justified from whose point of view? The world is not full of people with experiences identical to your own. While YOU don't think it was justified, there are millions of people around the world who are 'fed up' with the attitude and foreign policy of the big industrial powers and the death and destruction they are causing.

When is it ever justified to kill civilians? Yes civilians will have been caught in crossfire in places like iraq

You really have no idea what's happening in Iraq, do you? ALL the deaths are civilians. They're not just dying in crossfires. They're dying in military checkpoints styled on the Israeli way ( God help them ). They're dying in their own homes that get shelled because the US 'believe it was a terrorist haven'. They're dying in the street from heat exhaustion because there'e no power, 2 years after the invasion. They're dying for driving too close to US humvees. They're dying because they happened to live in Fallujah, which was carpet-bombed into oblivion. And people like you come out and claim that 'it might just be possible that on the odd occasion that a small number of entirely accidental fatalities may or may not occur'. Bullshit. OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND HAVE DIED. How many crossfires are there, anyway?

it was not the intension to go to kill and civilians

I've got news for you. This was exactly the plan, and even if it wasn't, they are ALL civilians. Not only that, NONE of them had any weapons of mass destruction, making them ALL INNOCENT.

which is exactly what the terrorists did, they targetted INNOCENT people

That's right. They targetted innocent people. Get over it. Our governments have targetted innocent people before, and they'll do it again. I belive Iran is next. Instead of getting hysterical over less than 100 deaths, try to put it in perspective and think of the 100,000+ deaths in Iraq caused directly by the invasion. I'm not saying London wasn't a tragedy. I'm just saying that it won't do people any good to NOT put the event in it's correct context - against a backdrop of illegal invasions, occupations, torture and abuse scandels, corrupt contract scoring, election fraud, and other trash that Bush, Blair and Howard insist on dragging us all through.

Don't you think that this applies to almost every country in the world?

Yes I do, and yes this is a problem - good on your for spotting it.

Re:Islam is a cancer

[ickoonite]

As a descendent from 16th century Heugonauts...

...you would think that you would be able to spell the name of your ancestors. It's Huguenot.

Idiot.

iqu :|

Re:Your Sig

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

The "Marvin the Martin" quote in your sig is somewhat eerie given the context of this discussion... :-)

It goes with the nickname. I now have a problem saying Donald Rumsfeld and whenever I see the man on television I expect him to pull off the mask he's wearing to reveal that he's one of the aliens from Mars Attack.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[databyss]

"Is it just people from the USA that seem to think that since an error is in widespread use that it's a good reason to continue using it?"

I'm not sure what you mean. The name, United States of America, comes from the fact that the country is made up of united states on the American continent. I'm not seeing an error there.

If anything, it's wrong to call the European Union by that name because it alienates countries in Europe that aren't in the EU.

"You know, we wouldn't need the term east indian if certain people stopped calling american natives indians."

They're called Native Americans, not Indians. Indians are people from India. I don't really think that there's wide spread use of calling a Native American an Indian anymore. Especially since there are so many people from India here that it would lead to too much confusion.

Re:What Goes Around Comes Around

[sumdumass]

In the next two paragraphs you cite the separation of the constituents from the government as a defence against killing civilians. I would rather argue that the specificity of the attack is proportional to the level of technology held by the attacker. To this day, I have heard few objections the the mass of civilian deaths as a result of the bombings of London and (worse) Berlin during WWII.

Yes, i could agree with you except for the points of the attacks. With berlin and london, the targets were still military and governmental offices. Sure thousands if not milions of bomds missed thier mark and took out churches and schools. Somethign that might be confusing the point here is that we did bomb factories and research labs that were contributing to the war effort. In my opinion this is still a military target because the use is to aid the military and it's war machine.

The terrorist, on the other hand, don't seem to be attacking militarily objective or governmental targets. They are content with attacking inocent civilians that have little to do with the situation at hand. MAybe they have some legitamit problems with policies but attacking someone that cannot do anythign about it doesn't really help thier situation much. With the exception of spain, usualy when somethign like this happenes, a politition is brought to stardom by claiming they will make the terrorist pay for it. Another problem is that these terrorist don't actualy represent a government in thier actions. Sure some governments give them safe harbor but controling these groups isn't in the deal.

I think the choice of targets and thier implied worth has alot to do with the situation. If the bombs were supposed to blow up a federal building and went off too soon instead of apearently only trying to kill inocent people with little to no influence i could see your point better.

The rest of your comment is pretty much right on the money. I would like to point out though, these extreamist aren't the governments of the countries subject to the foreign policy. Wouldn't it make more sence to take control of the local government then work to change the policy? Policy has to work both ways and all the countries in that area have oil which makes the stakes different.

Any ways, we learn form our mistakes. I hope this situation doesn't bring some strick invasion of privacy and erode out freedoms in the guise of not letting it happen again. Sadly there are some people that cannot see the differences between war and terror and think because we once did it, they should be allowed to do it. It reminds me of the school yard as a kid. Kids would fight other kids because they didn't like the way they were dressed. They couln't get along because they were unwilling or unable to look past some difference. It's sad that this style of mentality has graduated into governments and terrorist alike. The more we do somehtign to a particular person the more other were willing to come to thier aid. I see it getting worse before it gets better.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[fbjon]

Notice, though, that this confusion has spread to other languages. In Swedish one can say "Amerika", which can theoretically mean either the country or the 3 continents. But these days it nearly always means the three continents of America, and the country is simply called "USA". However, a citizen of the USA is usually referred to as "Amerikan" (pronounced 'amerikhaaan'), and one talks about 'amerikanska produkter' ("American products") and similarly for other examples. This is normal usage, and does exclude other citizens of the American continents.

Equivalence

[hidispenser]

In what way does this make fun of the bombing victims? I don't see any thing along the lines of "haha, they got blown up". Here's my point: the original post was making fun of the people who did the bombing, not the victims. So in what way is it offensive to the victims of the bombings? Say your mother was stabbed to death and her killer left bite marks in her buttocks. I come by and say, "Man, someone must've been hungry!" Now I'm not making fun of mama, just her attacker, but it still kind of hurts, doesn't it? Say the victim wasn't even your mama, but a friend of hers. Hurts less, probably, but I'm still not going to tell you you don't have cause to be upset by the remark.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[AoT]

American indians were called indians well before there was a cohesive political unit called India. American Indians were named originally by Columbus.
Learn history before you go spouting off.

Huh.

[Grendel Drago]

So you're saying that neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration had any evidence that the Sudanese claim was legit. So you're saying that I was right, and you were wrong.

That, or you're saying that the 9/11 commission was fed only what the Clinton administration---which was no longer in office at the time---wanted it to hear, in which case... what the hell was it there for, if it only acted as a glorified press release?

--grendel drago

Re:Because Sweden is already beaten?

[mr100percent]

That would make it a perfect target then, wouldn't it? If they're defenseless, they would be the best place to aim for. Even Christian missionaries have been known to go after poor areas, even cities in America dealing with huge unemployment, thinking that they'll be more receptive to religion. So why isn't Al Qaeda focusing on Sweden or even South America? Bin Laden doesn't care about Sweden, Sweden didn't have soldiers in his country, and Sweden didn't fund the dictators in his country.

Re:You confuse downtrodden with religious

[huge colin]

I'm not interested in a religious discussion.

I would say that a religious discussion goes along with quantifying atheism's value to the world, but have it your way.

The thing is that atheism has done nothing to reform humanity, bring civility or peace, or elevate morality or solve anything.

Maybe you're right. Maybe atheism has done nothing to quiet political ills or reduce violence. I guess being atheist is only something to be passionate about if you value absolute truth and knowledge above insignificant human matters.

Also, no you are wrong; there are plenty of options in science, and everything isn't a fact. If it were, we wouldn't have to research and apply the scientific method looking for truth, as we'd just know everything. Science is our understanding of the world around us, not the power to define reality.

Science has hypotheses, but hypotheses are much more than just opinions. There's usually some evidence involved that prompts a person to form a hypothesis in the first place.

As much as I can't stand religious nuts, I have to say that atheists are nearly as fucking annoying in their fundamentalist, narrow, ignorant and arrogant view of the world.

Fundamentalist? I guess you could say that, even though it's a loaded word.
Narrow? Definitely. Simple is good.
Arrogant? Usually, and with good reason.
Ignorant? No. The views of atheists would only be ignorant if the available evidence pointed to a more likely explanation, which is doesn't. At best, a completely undetectable god exists, which is exactly equivalent to no god at all.

This discussion is going nowhere and I don't think I'll be replying again.

Re:You confuse downtrodden with religious

[DECS]

It's going nowhere for you because you have nothing to tear down. Anyway, it looks like we agree on much of what you just wrote.

However, a completely undetectable god, would not "be equivalent to no god at all."

It doesn't matter if Schrodinger's cat is alive or not, because the the cat doesn't matter.

However, if you were say, playing with a CRT tube and don't have the means to detect whether it is charged, knowing or choosing not to know (or refusing to believe) that it could be dangerous simply because you lack the ability to detect the electricity, is a different matter.

One could logically decide that since it's been sitting idle for a long time, there is no chance that it has any charge left and is therefore safe to play with; that 'rational' decision could be lethal.

All through history there are examples of things that scientists could not detect at the time: radioactivity, electric current, viruses. That didn't mean they did not exist until they could be measured. So the fact that you can't perceive a higher power does not mean no higher power can exist.

A true scientist looks for truth and tries to better understand the world, but in reality, there is a huge amount of "science" that invents data to support a hypothesis (particularly when money in involved), or destroys or omits data that doesn't fit what they wish to believe, or skews information to back up political views. Every age of science has compiled a dogma of things one must believe in order to be considered fashionably intellectual.

There are so many people who simply subscribe to the current scientific doctrines, with no first hand knowledge, simply because they feel it makes them superior to believe what they're told and what they want to hear.

That's a flaw I see a lot in the church of atheism. Hearing atheists say they aren't religious is just painful. If you wish to use "religion" as a negative word (which is more often than not is), atheism needs to be included as a religion, simply because it shares so much with other destructive, fundamentalist, narrow, arrogant sects.

Re:Fucking Animals

[tracker1972]

But I do not live in a society like that, and neither does the United States. Their is an international community and it may not be perfect but their is one. And I live in a community. That is kind of a definition of civilisation, you know, the whole agriculture instead of hunter gatherer thing. The whole giving up thousands of years of kicking the shit out of whoever for our benefit whether they are a threat or not and replacing it with cooperative effort.

If the US will subscribe to things like economic sanctions, whether their idea or not, they have subscribed to the idea. Such action is not taken against a state because they are a nice friendly place, it is because there is something "wrong" there. But a choice has been made. Standing firm and making your decision right is a far stronger message than saying fuckit, bomb the bastards.

And yes, that is about being better than them, not as an individual, not as a culture, but as an opposing side of whatever the argument is.

If you cannot prove you are "better" than them, then maybe you are not, and should accept it.

Tracker.

p.s. better does not equal bigger, stonger, my dad can beat up your dad, I can afford bigger guns.

Re:You confuse downtrodden with religious

[huge colin]

(Ok, I lied. Here's a reply.)

Not only have supreme beings not been detected yet, they are defined as being undetectable.* This is a very important difference. The very definition totally precludes the possibility of verification. Saying "show evidence to support the existence of the undetectable" is logically equivalent to saying "prove that false is true". This is why I say that the situation we have here is (or is equivalent to) no god existing.


* I'm sure you can find some gods in some religions that aren't omnipotent (and therefore might not be able to change the outcome of any test you perform to detect their presence), but these are generally smaller, less popular religions that don't have to stand up to much logical scrutiny and therefore don't have the same "god-works-in-mysterious-ways" defense mechanism. Religions work much like organisms: they either need to build up a resistance to logic or they will go extinct. Logic is the antibiotic to the bacterial disease of religion.

Also forgot to mention point 3's biggest fallacy..

[dtolman]

...it wasn't found in a rubble pile. It was found on the street after the planes hit - but before the towers collapsed.

I can't agree.

[YesIAmAScript]

I lived through both eras (I'm 36) and I can't agree.

Communism was already stalled long before the USSR invaded Afghanistan. There's little liklihood it would have taken root there.

And as to communists in Central America, Cuba, etc.? We handled that on a case-by-case basis. We did stop Cuba from using Grenada as a base to export communist revolution to South America. We totally messed up Nicaragua and Honduras.

Really I divide the "communist threat" in the new world (threat to us) into tow parts.

1. False threats we declared as communist, which were really countries just trying to get out from the thumb of US corporate ownership. See United Fruit Company and our repelling "communists", where communist was defined as someone who would nationalize property owned by Americans.
2. Actual USSR communists allies, meaning Cuba. In this case, Castro come to us first. He turned to the USSR (and thus communist) because we turned our back on him.

We could have done a lot smarter things than backing Jihadists in Afghanistan and still blunted the force of the already slow-moving soviet threat.

Well. this is wrong.

[tod_miller]

Every phone contract is given a class, us low lifes are given a sim set to class 'D' which means scum off the earth. Class A is government officials etc. The class system is a priority.

All they do it lock out lower classes to make sure there is enough always free lines for emergency services.

No conspiracy or anything to do with stopping mobile based bombs incidentally, this is a seperate need, because the mobile network suck, and even around the lunch time 'hey tim what are *you* eating today' pointless phonecall nexus, it can be hard to avoid a 'network busy' signal.

If you get network busy, while trying to call in that you need more help at a location to rescue people, it won't be fun. I asked to have my class upgraded when I heard about this, after an hour on the phone I got through to someone who knew what i was talking about at Vodaphone, and they gave me their default deny spiele.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[fbjon]

There's no spouting off here anywhere, and I'm talking about the word America(ns). Indians, whether specifically American or otherwise, do not enter the equation.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[AoT]

sorry, I do believe I accidentally replied to the wrong post.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[fbjon]

'Tis t3h OK.

Re:Also forgot to mention point 3's biggest fallac

[Fantastic Lad]

...it wasn't found in a rubble pile. It was found on the street after the planes hit - but before the towers collapsed.

CNN disagrees with you.

Thanks for playing.

-FL

Don't laugh.

[Fantastic Lad]

1) Wow - that gave me a laugh. You admit that strictly speaking, my point is 100% correct. And then you demand I speculate. Whats the point? The only people in the position to know are the people in question - and perhaps the authorities who questioned them. Not everything has a rational explanation - especially when you compound that with the fact that 30 million people were in the physical light cone of the WTC events. You are assuming causality - that everything that happened that day is relevant - when reality is that the actions of the vast majority of those 30 million has no relevance. Any speculation on their actions, no matter how inane, is equally valid - and also equally invalid.

Laughing, are you? Good job. Remember: ridicule is the first line of defense with people who do not like to venture outside dogmatic and/or flawed belief systems. Instead, try thinking:

To start with the semantics in your above argument don't work very well.

The only way to learn about the true nature of an event is to investigate circumstances which suggest causality. If people ignored every event which seemed out of place saying, "I don't want to assume causality," then nobody would ever learn anything.

There is a reason why 'circumstantial evidence' is considered acceptable in courts of law. And there was also, clearly a reason that, as it happened, the dancing Israelis were arrested and held for many weeks. --Oddly enough, they were eventually released into the care of the Israeli authorities with no public announcement as to their guilt or innocence. --Though, when asked after their release about it, the response was, "[...] Our purpose was to document the event."

--Which is pretty interesting in itself. I'm sorry, but I simply cannot lump the dancers into the same category as any other randomly picked out person in New York. --Especially considering the long list of past actions and indictments and activities of Mossad agents through the last half century. Means, Motive, Opportunity and piles of circumstantial evidence were all available for the Mossad, and no good explanation whatsoever for the incriminating actions. Sometimes if a thing looks like a rose and smells like a rose. . .

2) The refusals of the administration to cooperate when investigating the US governments half-assed handling of intelligence and lack of coherent anti-terrorist policy prior to the events has little to do with the actual investigation of the actions of the individuals who carried out the hijacking, or those who financed or directed them.

This would perhaps be true if elements of the U.S. government were not involved in the direction and implementation of the attacks. Even if the attacks were simply allowed to happen and nothing more, (and I think there was a lot more encouragement than that), then investigating the administration is of paramount importance. Again, automatically assuming innocence is just plain dumb when there is means, motive and opportunity in abundance.

3) Is a series of fallacies. The fact of the matter is that the fire started after the crash - the sheer momentum of the airplanes meant that some of its contents - especially from the front (like where the passport probably was) and heaver engines of the airplanes - were expelled relatively intact (except for damage from the fall). Other documented debris found on the roofs of nearby buildings (and on the streets) include an engine, fuselage parts, seats from the forward compartment, and not to mention body parts from the passengers themselves.

Uh huh. But no black boxes? Come on.

--The problem is that there was just so much stage-management surrounding the whole disaster clean-up and release of information that convenient discoveries like incriminating passports just don't strike me as convincing.

-FL

Re:Don't laugh.

[dtolman]

Thinking? Right... israeli=mossad=conspiracy. Please. Thats a kneejerk response - not logic. Your fixation on the trivial is telling - you obsess on curiosities which weren't even primary evidence. For example the passport - was it used as primary evidence? No. The investigation used the seat locations as reported by a flight attendant on the hijacked flight for IDing the terrorists.

But I think I've posted enough to prove my point - you're a high functioning paranoid. In your mind speculation=facts, reported facts=faked, and everything that doesn't fit must be part of a conspiracy. Good for you... but don't confuse your mental illness for clear thinking.

Re:Also forgot to mention point 3's biggest fallac

[dtolman]

Awww...too bad Newsday - a local paper with local reporters disagrees. Heck - I even have an article from before they figured out it was a hijackers ID.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/wtc/ ny-nymain172369721sep17,0,7772460.story

And thats not to mention the 9/11 Commission - whose official report confirms this. But don't worry about it - its a lot easier to have a conspiracy theory when you don't let FACTS get in the way.

Re:I Upset the racist club ...

[lbmouse]

...I am a real American...

You must be who Green Day is singing about.

Killing non-believers

[downwa]

both the Koran and bible are very clear about converting or killing nonbelievers

I can't speak for the Koran, but the Bible's instructions for killing are not pointed at just any non-believers. There were distinctions made between most non-believers and those who practiced e.g. child sacrifice by immolation, or who had been especially cruel in the past. Also, these instructions were given to specific people for specific situations, not general instructions on how to treat people.

There are also notable anti-killing statements, even in the "bloody" old testament. For example, there was a case of a vassal group who had been partly slaughtered by king Saul (contrary to previous promises), and who were given justice by king David. There are also many instances of God condemning the slaughter of innocents or even complacency when others did so. Though the response (retributive slaughter of the slaughterers) may seem excessively bloody to our western secular mindset, it can be justified much as is the death penalty.

This is in contrast to the mindset of fanatical Islamic, Buddhist, or even "Christian" terrorists who justify retribution, not on a "specific killing for specific killing" basis, but on a "oneupmanship" basis of escalating violence.

This is not to discount the reasons used by e.g. bin Laden to justify 9-11. I'm sure they believe they have good reasons for their crusade against the "infidels", and maybe they do have reason to complain. I'm just pointing out that their response to the purported problems is not directed at the right people and in the right quantity, to be justified (if you were judging them by the Bible). Since they aren't going by the Bible, but by the Koran, maybe they can claim justification there, I don't know.

Points down the hole. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Thinking? Right... israeli=mossad=conspiracy. Please. Thats a kneejerk response - not logic. Your fixation on the trivial is telling - you obsess on curiosities which weren't even primary evidence. For example the passport - was it used as primary evidence? No. The investigation used the seat locations as reported by a flight attendant on the hijacked flight for IDing the terrorists.

But I think I've posted enough to prove my point - you're a high functioning paranoid. In your mind speculation=facts, reported facts=faked, and everything that doesn't fit must be part of a conspiracy. Good for you... but don't confuse your mental illness for clear thinking.

Another bold & broad statement made while neatly avoiding actually responding to all but one of the points being discussed. --I note you tend to be one of those who likes to make big statements and put them forth with an air of authority as though this alone will make them true. This is, incidentally, one of the tactics of the Bush admin.

You think you've put forth enough evidence to prove that I am a 'high functioning paranoid' (whatever that is)? Okay. Just for fun, let's tally up our score. . .

1. Going waaaay back to your first Blanket Statement. --You claimed that I was getting all my information and thinking from the, 'Cairo Dailies'. I hope you'll note that none of what we've been dealing with here has come from any such source. (Except the comments from one of the 5 dancing Israelis, which originated on an Israeli talk-show). If you search through my past comments here on mighty Slashdot, you would similarly note that I exercise rather more care than you suggest in examining the details of our world. Your first blanket statement was inaccurate when you uttered it and remains so now. 1 point for Me, 0 for You.

2. Your claim that the Dancing Israelis are utterly irrelevant because of your causation theory still doesn't make any sense, as I tried to illustrate as best I was able in my last post. You've not bothered to respond to that, (probably because you are beginning to see the faults in your argument and don't know how to respond without losing face). So I'll take that as another point against you. So, 2 points for Me, 0 for You.

3. I found the Bush administration's refusal to cooperate with the investigation significant, and indicative of possible guilt. You did not, and have yet to come up with anything resembling a functional argument as to why you did not, (other than more blanket statements with zero support and faulty logic). 3 for Me, 0 for You.

4. The passport. I'll have to concede that it is physically possible for a booklet of paper to have been ejected from the impact and found later. I don't necessarily agree that this is without question where the passport came from, but I will have to give you the point nonetheless because the logic isn't bad. Good job!

So the final tally is, 3 for Me, 1 for You.

Though, I'd be curious to know your opinions on those missing black boxes. (Of course, I wouldn't want to be further accused of 'obsessive' interest in 'trivial curiosities'.).

Sooo. As for having proven your point that I am a 'high functioning paranoid', give me a break. Try actually answering my last post with rational responses, and then we'll consider your latest blanket statement. --Though considering your current standing in this debate, I'd say you're probably not up to the task, and I'm guessing that on some deep level, you are vaguely conscious of this; why else your, "I'm taking my toys and I'm going home!" attitude? (Right up there with your liberal use of the Ridicule-as-Argument device.)

Those in denial tend to have soft brains well adjusted to convincing themselves they are right regardless of logic and facts. The interesting thing is that the longer one remains on that path, the softer the brain becomes, and the weaker the spirits and the dimmer the light. You might want to consider this if you are still able.

-FL

Re:Points down the hole. . .

[dtolman]

Glad to see that a little sense was able to soak into your brain (point 4). Maybe you aren't hopeless after all... Lets resort through them again Point 1) Maybe you didn't get every fact from the cairo rags, but I don't have the time to sort out the difference between complete loony conspiracy nut, and a mostly loony conspiracy nut. If your particular lunacy isn't based on the mideast tabloids, give yourself a pat on the back. Point 2) What point? What logic did you use? Your explanation still doesn't make any sense - you take a few facts and turn them into a conspiracy.... So far your case is, people were videoing and dancing, the people are israeli's, mossad agents are israeli's, the dancing people were mossad agents, the mossad was responsible. You've taken 3 facts and then mixed in 2 giant leaps of logic! If I whip out a video camera, and point and laugh while someone I don't know is gunned down by someone else I don't know - it makes me scum - not a murderer. Would it be wrong to take me in for questioning? No - and thats what the authorities did - them and 100's of other "people of interest" in the NY area- almost all of them bystanders...All your "point" illustrates is that scum can come from Israel - only by leaps of logic (israeli=mossad=conspiracy) can that equal evidence of anything... point 3) The Bush administration didn't cooperate with the parts of the investigation looking into how they bungled anti-terrorism measures prior to 9/11. At best - thats indicative of a scandalous lack of attention given to Al-Qaeda - not involvement. Identifying the hijackers, following the paper/money trail,etc is a completely seperate business - and I don;t recall any complaints from the 9/11 commission, or any other investigative bodies about that aspect. Point 4) My theory for the black boxes vs passports? Passports are easily identifiable by any onlooker. A black box is just another hunk of scrap metal in a pile of scrap. Remember - the data is designed to survive a crash - not the casing - who knows what a flight data recorder box will look like after a 1400 foot fall?

Huh?

[Fantastic Lad]

Typically, when quoting a source to prove the accuracy of your statement, the source should actually say something to indicate, um, the accuracy of your statement.

I checked the newsday article. It doesn't say anything about the passport hitting the ground before the tower collapsed. As for the passport belonging to one of the hijackers. . , nobody was ever debating that. The question was whether or not it was likly for the passport to have been found where it was said to have been found, and not simply planted.

And thats not to mention the 9/11 Commission - whose official report confirms this. But don't worry about it - its a lot easier to have a conspiracy theory when you don't let FACTS get in the way.

Don't make blind accusations and throw the word, 'facts' at me in all-caps until you figure out what is even being discussed, okay?

-FL

Learn geography...

[dtolman]

Read the article again - its the original source report that CNN, USA Today, and all the rest of the national newspapers keyed off of. They all made the same mistake you (and the rest of the conspiracy lunatics) did - a passport a few blocks away from the towers doesn't mean Ground Zero. They read it and assumed it must have been found in the rubble. Everyone in NY knows that Ground Zero was only the immediate WTC block - a few blocks away means it wasn't in the rubble pile. The 9/11 Commission Report fills in the rest of the gaps.

Re:Fucking Animals

[leecn]

Never forget that violence, either inflicted or the threat of it, is what makes the world go round. The only difference that 'civilized society' has is we let the police and goverment do it for us, rather than having to do it ourselves.

I'd say Jesus would probably have disagreed with you on that one

Re:Fucking Animals

[Demonspawn]

You would need to explain how, as I have not extensively studied the christian religon.

--Demonspawn

Re:Fucking Animals

[Demonspawn]

"The whole giving up thousands of years of kicking the shit out of whoever for our benefit whether they are a threat or not and replacing it with cooperative effort."

Hrm... cooperative effort... you mean the threat of kicking the shit out of whoever?

And yes, the US did subscribe to economic scantions... and they didn't work. Should you continue on a coruse of action that doesn't work so you can save face?

Since you use the term "Better" you really need to define it. You seem to view the world as some sort of popularity contest. It isn't. Better really is about having more guns, bigger guns, and a stronger military.

Yes, I have a radically different viewpoint than most on this topic. The reasoning behind that is I am ex-military. I was the one who provided violence, or the threat thereof, for those who wouldn't or couldn't. It has tought me two very important lessons.

1) War will exist as long as someone belives in something strongly enough to kill for it. If they are willing to die for it, war is inevitable.

2) The main crux of our difference of opinion is thus: There are no such things as inaliable human rights. If there were, then the situations such as Bosnia, Ruwanda, Somilia, and the other ethnic clensings wouldn't exist/of existed. The only "rights" we have as humans exist because our goverments/some other collection of people (and therefore force) are willing to inflict violence on others to protect them for us. Normally the threat of that violence is enough, but when situation 1 happens, they need to actually inflict it.

What would happen if we were all happy and all just got along? Than the first person with a rifle/good sword arm who decided that he didn't like the status quo would rule us all.

--Demonspawn

Yes.

[Fantastic Lad]

Read the article again - its the original source report that CNN, USA Today, and all the rest of the national newspapers keyed off of. They all made the same mistake you (and the rest of the conspiracy lunatics) did - a passport a few blocks away from the towers doesn't mean Ground Zero. They read it and assumed it must have been found in the rubble. Everyone in NY knows that Ground Zero was only the immediate WTC block - a few blocks away means it wasn't in the rubble pile. The 9/11 Commission Report fills in the rest of the gaps.

Yes. The passport was found a distance away from 'Ground Zero'. I accepted that this was part of the story shortly after my first post.

I didn't want to give you that satisfaction, though, because you sounded like another smarmy geek who, "Doesn't Believe in Conspiracies."

So I decided to annoy you for saying that the passport was found before the towers collapsed, which was not true. Figured you might go away.

Guess that didn't work. So, yes. You were right about the passport not being on ground zero.

Although, I might as well say that I think you use the term 'conspiracy lunatic' entirely too freely. The U.S. government has acted many times in many ways to suggest that there is a great deal of lying and manipulating going on. --The attacks on 9-11 themselves were the fruits of a big conspiracy. (A secret plan brought to fruition!) People who say, 'there is no such thing as conspiracies' are thus flat wrong. Conspiracies, many even by good ol' Americans, have been historically documented. They happen very, very easily, especially when there are geeks out there who are too emotionally damaged to examine anything except ways to prop up the official story.

So, yes. The passport was found a few blocks away from ground zero. But this does not mean that 9-11 went down the way it was officially described. If a black box can be spirited away by the FBI, (or whoever), then an incriminating passport can just as easily be left behind.

-FL

Interesting. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

2) [. . .] All your "point" illustrates is that scum can come from Israel - only by leaps of logic (israeli=mossad=conspiracy) can that equal evidence of anything...

According to this story, it was unofficially determined that the five men were indeed Mossad operatives. This is from a Jewish paper, suggesting that this detail is probably factual, while those aspects of the story which seem to tone down the level of Mossad involvement in 9-11 are also possibly just that; toned down, or even outright falsehoods.

Once you know the lean and bias of a journal, you just lean the other way in order to zero in on where the truth might really sit.

The Bush administration didn't cooperate with the parts of the investigation looking into how they bungled anti-terrorism measures prior to 9/11. At best - thats indicative of a scandalous lack of attention given to Al-Qaeda - not involvement.

Can't a scandalous lack of attention have been deliberate? It sounds very much as though it had been, particularly with regard to the many reports from FBI agents being told to back off in their investigations of the Bin Ladens and their hirelings once Bush got into office. --And if a lack of attention was deliberate, could not further involvement have also been possible? We'll never know through the investigation.

Identifying the hijackers, following the paper/money trail,etc is a completely seperate business - and I don;t recall any complaints from the 9/11 commission, or any other investigative bodies about that aspect

Problem is, I've heard exactly nothing from the government regarding the many allegations of pre-9/11 insider trading. --A lot of money was made by dumping stocks in big companies which had offices in the World Trade Center. There is no question as to whether or not this happened and that the activity was almost certainly the result of foreknowledge of the attacks, but there has been zero follow-up on this when it would have been (and still could be) easy enough to do. Here's an essay with notes detailing this issue. The thinking is that the CIA and people connected to them were probably involved in making some of those high-profit trades because they would have been among those in the know beforehand. Lots of dirty hands.

Point 4) My theory for the black boxes vs passports? Passports are easily identifiable by any onlooker. A black box is just another hunk of scrap metal in a pile of scrap. Remember - the data is designed to survive a crash - not the casing - who knows what a flight data recorder box will look like after a 1400 foot fall?

To be honest, I pondered that very question myself until I realized that black boxes are specifically designed to survive falling from heights of considerably more than 1400 feet. They are also painted red, or day-glo orange with white stripes so that they can be easily found in wreckage. The engineers were thinking about these problems.

Then I ran across this item which suggests that the black boxes were indeed found, but quickly spirited away into the hands of the FBI. If the story from the fire-fighters is true, then why would the government not want anybody to know what was going on aboard those planes, and then lie to the public about not finding the boxes?

Without wanting to make any knee-jerk assumptions, the curious mind can't help but wonder at the blank spots, at the fishy smell, and the total avoidance of these subjects in the official press.

-FL

Is this the same person?

[dtolman]

I commend your shift in tone - if you keep this up I'll have to reconsider my original blanket sterotyping of you...so lets go through all the points again:

- The article about them possibly being Mossad agents is interesting. But I still see no connection between Israel and the 9/11 hijackers. The money and information trail still all points back to Al Qaeda. This still leaves this whole story as a side show....

- Can casting a blind eye be delibrate? Sure... just look at Pearl Harbor - its been suggested that the US leadership knew it was coming and supressed knowledge (never proven). Could this have been the same thing? Yes - and no. No in the sense that the US government didn't know this specific attack was coming. That is well documented...but on the other hand you could argue Yes in the sense that the US govt knew some kind of attack would come eventually. But even the worst possible kind of anti-terrorist neglect (spending resources elsewhere with the hope some kind of an attack will happen - and thus justify some sort of policy shift) though is very very far away from organizing, planning, and carrying out the attacks. And again - the information and money trail all leads back to Al Qaeda. Besides that - there was no reason for the US govt to help Al Qaeda - they were doing just fine on their own... The Millenium bombings were stopped by dumb luck - not skill on the US's part. It was just a matter of time once Al Qaeda decided to target the US mainland - and good luck can only defend against terrorism for so long...

- The article you suggest to read is incomplete - while puts and calls are used to bet against/for stock price changes, it completely ignores what they are most famously used for today - Hedges. The concept is simple - spending a few million on a stock (going long)? Hedge your bet by buying some put options as well (go short). It lowers profit, but also reduces downside. The National Review investigated, and were able to identify the source: some firms hedging against large purchases of stock, and an investing newsletter that was bearish on AMR:
http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose20040726070 0.asp

- First off this last point may smell fishy - but like the passport, its a side show. There is nothing in the flight data except for curiosities... passengers called in all the info authorities needed to ID the hijackers, the flight path was well determined from the ground, so all thats missing is the cockpit conversations - and do to their lack of training in communications equipment - even some of that was captured anyway.

But besides that - I'll note that just because something 'survives' a crash, doesn't mean it does so in any shape we would call 'good'. Its also important to note that their is a big difference between an airliner crashing into the ocean, or a field, or a row of houses - and crashing into 3 of the worlds largest office buildings... office buildings full of electronics in casings - even brightly colored ones (I know some companies like bright colors on routers, power junctions, and other high priority electronics). The flight data recorders were just another group of banged up electronics boxes, in the worlds largest pile of scrap... considering that I'm not sure why anyone ever expected them to be found at ground zero anyway...

Re:Resond with less bias, dummy

[TapeCutter]

"Evangelicals are despised by liberals yet they despise them less than islamic fanatics that cowardly kill innocent women and children."

You respond to some imaginary bias with your own bias against liberals?

Most people would call me "liberal" but I'm obviously not worthy of that label since I don't despise anybody for being a religious fanatic. If anything I feel a tad sorry for them and thier followers. However I do despise violence, no matter if it's a terrorist bomb placed on a bus or a military bomb dropped from a Tomcat, it's still a fucking bomb, innocent people WILL be killed and maimed. In both cases the people who are planning and executing the bombing are well aware that what they are doing will result in death and/or serious injury to innocent people. Terrorists will ease thier consience by calling those people conspirators, Generals will do the same by calling them collateral damage, neither one of them is thinking "what if it was my family?".

A week before the London bombs the US carried out an air raid on a suspected terrorist hideout in Afganistan. The hideout was actually a normal home in a small village. Most of the 17 innocent victims (some of them children) were killed by a second bombing run because they had rushed to help the victims of the first bombing run (reminisent of the way terrorist sometimes strike twice in the same spot in the hopes of killing rescue workers). I see absolutely no moral difference between what the terrorists did in London and what the US did to that village, from my "liberal" point of view both events equate to mass murder. If someone here can enlighten me as to why the two events should be treated so very differently I would be gratefull.

The GP post is spot on, bombing terrorists (and any hapless civilians who are near the target area) will simply create more terrorists. Kind of ironic since the WW2 blitz on London has already shown that you cannot bomb a people into submission. What actually happens is the exact opposite, ie: the survivours will become more determined to strike back at any cost. Why would anyone expect a "terrorist" population to react differently?

You may now mod me to Hell and call me a traitor for suggesting the US kills far more innocent people than the terrorists could ever hope to kill.

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[hesiod]

> you can now quote, directly, the majority of known terrorist leaders giving an ironclad statement that they have perpetrated X Y and Z attacks simply over religious intolerance? Right?

And you, I assume, can now quote, directly, the majority of Bush's cabinet giving ironclad statements about... ANYTHING? And these are people that are on TV all the time, as opposed to the Al-Qaeda leaders in caves. Yeah, they sure get a lot of TV exposure...

Re:Fucking Animals

[Lars T.]

You mean the oil for food program, were more than 50% of the abusers were from the USA?

Re:Fucking Animals

[N3WBI3]

So the fact the euros had fewer means they were ok in the whole thing right.... What color is the sky in your world..

Re:Fucking Animals

[Lars T.]

So the fact that you Americans are for more responsible for anything Saddam ever did doesn't matter. Sucks to be you.

Re:Fucking Animals

[N3WBI3]

I figure that its a push seing the brits appeased Hitler for so long..

Re:Fucking Animals

[Lars T.]

Not as long as the Yanks. Not to mention youse rednecks.

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[leecn]

Am I saying all muslims are Christian hating killers? no! but those who are dont do it becuase of US policy, rather they do it because of religion

So, let me get this straight, you are saying that those muslims who are 'Christian hating killers', kill christians because of religion.

Nice work, Holmes.

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[N3WBI3]

Religion and culture... One can disagree with a religion and what it teaches without hating them. I disagree with Jihad, and sanctioned practice of applying special taxes to non-Muslims, the criminalisation of preaching any religion but Islam, and finally the loss of rights that goes along with converting.

The people who bombed the trade center and the underground were protected by the Tali ban, thats the kind of people they are. The Tali ban, mind you, blew up two ancient amazing artifacts in their territory simply because they were Buddhist.

If the concept is beyond you I won't be supervised as it seems all you do is follow around people you might disagree with and troll them

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[leecn]

You completely missed my point, which was that your statement (saying that 'Christian hating killers' kill Christians because of religion) was so obviously true as to be pointless.

If the concept is beyond you I won't be supervised as it seems...

Is this some sort of joke? Do you honestly not know the difference between the word surprised and the word surprised?

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[leecn]

Replace the last words of previous post with "surprised and the word supervised" - I do know the difference

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[N3WBI3]

And you seem just as capable of a typo or missing something a spell check did to a typo as I...

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[leecn]

You spellcheck your posts?

Re:I think I can speak for everyone when i say

[N3WBI3]

Sometimes, when I know the person ig a grammar nazi..