Slashdot Mirror
Six Bomb Blasts Around Central London
M3rk1n_Muffl3y writes "There were six explosions around London this morning. Information is still emerging, but looks like there were bombs detonated on a bus near Russel Square and several others on the Underground around the City and King's Cross. It's been difficult to reach people on their mobiles."
Maybe someone's mad they didn't get to host the Olympics?? Sheesh.
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.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
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!
BBC News have reports on Spiegel Online that is displaying the text that Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for today's attacks in London.
(translation)
I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
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
That could make things interesting.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
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).
"A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
Vodafone and others have warned that emergency services will have priority on the GSM networks. Expect congestion and unreachable people if you try to join them on their cell phones.
Londoners have been warned to stay at home. Commuters have been warned to avoid London.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
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
No, the British considered Americans terrorists ~230 years ago.
For those of you interested, the mobile phone network has been switched to a Security Services only mode so members of the public can only make emergency 999 calls.
If there be few amongst us, our hearts be very great, and each shall have more plunder, and each shall have more plate
I think it was not so much that the mobile network was switched off rather that it could not handle the load,
Not my analysis but love him or loathe his viewpoint Wretchard makes valid points.
- comes-to-london.html
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/07/blitz
Display some adaptability.
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?
/.ers are U.S., i'm sure we have lots of British readers here.
Let's be a little bit considerate. Not all
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
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.
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.
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
The latest news directly from the ad-free and registration-free BBC:
n _explosions/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2005/londo
(/. don't allow me to post anonymously...)
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
An Al Qaeda groups has claimed responsibility already.
A lot of experts have also pointed to the attack being "typical of Al Qaeda".
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.
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.
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.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Funny. That's exactly what the terrorists say about those they attack.
It's horrendous, but bombing random developing-world nations is probably not any sort of solution...
Me (Blog)
Been following this for the last 3 hours.
Apparently the Army are now on the streets of london, trying to help EMTs get to the injured, there's a train full of people still stuck underground. Public transport hs been shutdown in London and people are being advised to stay where they are and not go into the city.
Reports are that there were 6 bombs, 3 on buses and 3 on subway trains.
Tony Blair is on his way back to London from the G8 summit in Edinburgh
Allegedly, al Qa'eda are claiming responsibility, but i haven't been able to find a definite source on this.
BBC.co.uk has been swamped, but news.bbc.co.uk is still available (last i checked)
This pisses me off royally... London was set to celebrate getting the Olympics today, huge open air celebrations, but that's all been cancelled. With all the humanitarian work that's been happening in the last weeks, you'd think that malcontents would be a little less belligerent. Progress is being made.
Now the British (who have masses of experience dealing with terrorists) will be pissed off, and the Americans have an excuse to throw their weight around even more...
Also, from talking to people in a few places, everyone seems to be thinking "Are we next?". Yes the British went into Iraq and Afghanistan, but they're been fairly well controlled for the most part. This is extremism at its worst. I don't want to kill the people who did this, i want to slap them in the face and tell them to cop themselves on... this is exactly the opposite of progress.
and if you see me strut, remind me of what left this outlaw torn...
The war on terror is exactly why these things happen in the first place. It started with us.
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.
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.
I'm from London and I appreciated it. Stop trying to stamp out humour just because of a few explosions.
Ron dies in chapter 9 of book 7.
My web domain.
The GP's comment was obviously tongue-in-cheek. Notice his .sig as well as his comment history.
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.)
stored on computers from birth to the grave
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.
-- I would have got out of bed earlier...but I was asleep.
[..] bombing random developing-world nations is probably not any sort of solution.
Sweet Jesus, does Dubya know about this?
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Central London is completely Blocked.My brother is at his office and the roads are cordoned off even for pedestrians.
,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.
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
Wanted : A Signature.
Londoners and all UK residents have been learning this lesson for over 30 years.
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.
Where's the Kaboom?
There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
I heard on CNN that the same explosions were being reported by multiple stations due to the fact that they exploded on trains between tube stations.
Physics: Making the universe open source.
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...
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.
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?
Get your own free personal location tracker
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.
The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
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?
Capacity being diverted to emergency services, too.
It's really not surprising the phones have gone down - it seems to go pretty far afield. For instance, I told a colleague in Brussels what had happened, and she understandably tried getting hold of friends in London. Everyone's fine, fortunately, but it seems anyone working or living in London is being inundated with calls right now.
The asynchronous nature of stuff like SMSes and email might be an advantage if you're trying to get hold of someone - it's not like a phone call which needs to connect immediately. Alternatively, try phoning a (non-London) friend or relative of the person you're trying to contact, in case they've heard already.
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
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.
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.
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!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
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!
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).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Wikipedia article up already, good work Wiki editors
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.
Some moblog photos from the time of the event.
4 618,-0.120592&spn=0.035216,0.083822&hl=en
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=51.51
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
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.
Powered by onion juice.
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.
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.
Coca-Cola, sometimes War.
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.
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
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.
Mod parent up!
Wikileaks, no DNS
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.
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.
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.
Official GOD FAQ.
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.
This is my sig.
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.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
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.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
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.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
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.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
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 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.
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.
I like muppets.
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?
---- scrm
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.
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.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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.
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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
www.aleo.no
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...
I came up with this tag first!
/fredu
We make me sick.
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!
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...
and if you see me strut, remind me of what left this outlaw torn...
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.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Everyone of who exactly ?
Do you know who is responsible ?
If so, are you sure that you are right ?
I'm all for killing every God-damned one of 'em.
That's funny, so are they. Welcome to the moral low ground.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
>>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
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
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
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.
The current info seems to be 1 near Liverpool Street (people leaving via Liverpool Street, Aldgate, Aldgate East and Moorgate (There may have been a semi-related collision between 2 trains here too), 1 between Kings X and Russell Square, and one by Edgeware Road (that's the subsurface edgeware road, I think) Then there was 1 bomb on a bus by Tavistock Square, rumoured to be a suicide attack. 2 confirmed deaths at Liverpool Street (but no info for ages), 10 deaths reported from the bus (unofficial but reliable source; someone from the British Medical Association who helped at the scene) and no accurate numbers from the other 2 sites. 200-odd people in hospital in total.
In soviet russia stale jokes recycle you!
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.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You do know that SKY is the UK end of the FOX network, right?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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...
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.
Ron dies in chapter 9 of book 7.
The Anonymous Coward title has never been more appropriate on Slashdot. You sir, are an idiot.
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.
The ______ Agenda
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.)
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
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
"The opposite of war is not always peace. Sometimes the opposite of war is slavery"
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
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
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...
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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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?
an ill wind that blows no good
"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.
Ron dies in chapter 9 of book 7.
Yeah, the right-wingers sure did get upset at Clinton for trying to kill Osama.
Funny, that.
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...
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.
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.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
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
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The original comment which you took offence to was: "Maybe someone's mad they didn't get to host the Olympics?? Sheesh."
:( :(" and assumed they were making fun of the victims. You are a hypersensitive whiner.
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
Ron dies in chapter 9 of book 7.
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?
...I didn't know the terrorist objective was to make things harder for themselves. Idiots.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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.
Also, the recent flickr activity can be found here.
"Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing." -- Salvador Dali
"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
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
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"
Nice straw man. Where did anyone mention surrendering?
Peace != Surrender
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
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.
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.
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.
"This quote is a product of the Frobozz Magic Quote Company."
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
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.
But why is the rum gone?
SOMEONE SET UP US THE BOMB
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...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
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.
Take the Taliban for example. In the 1980's, Henry Kissinger advised Ronald Reagan that through Afghanistan, the USA could hand the USSR "Its Viet Nam".
Thus, the "Afghan Freedom Fighters" were born.
So, at our encouragement (and provision), they bled, and died, and won their freedom. Much like China backed the Viet Cong, we backed the Afghans.
And later presidents (and congress) changed their mind. We abandoned them.
The Taliban then started pounding the drum "They played us for suckers. Are you widows and orphans (and neighbors of widows and orphans) listening?"
The cause of all this trouble was not religious bigotry - it was meddling.
Well, it was meddling, and the lack of foresight to understand that presidents change, and there are no guarantees that the new president will maintain the policies of the old president. Any country or people that cut a deal with the USA needs to understand that. Frankly, our own State Department needs to warn the principals of this, at the beginning of any scheme.
To write off their anger as incoherent religious dogma is to delude yourself. We meddled. Then we walked away, without much, if any, thanks. Those actions had consequences.
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
"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.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
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.
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.
I am trolling
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.
This is a boring sig
- Mel Brooks
The US (and/or the West) are not responsible exclusively, or even mostly, for the situation in the mideast.
Are you familiar with what we did in Iran?
Our awful, and bloodthirsty, actions in Iran destabilized a popular, realtively moderate (if nationalist) democracy and installed a pro-western puppet, who clung to power with a secret police described by Amnesty International as the "world's worst" for their unheard-of level of barbarity and disrespect for human rights.
Result: in 1979, our CIA-backed puppet was overthrown, and a Radical, Fascist Islamic Theocracy gained power.
This is what they call a "backlash."
So let's read what you said again:
The US (and/or the West) are not responsible exclusively, or even mostly, for the situation in the mideast.
Let's all reflect on this a moment.
OK, ready to continue?
You may be right that the Middle East has its own problems, and your implied ruthless reasoning about the world's necesity for oil will no doubt resonate, but what you are dreadfully wrong about is that the American/Brittish petroleum-industry campaign of dirty tricks and military intervention works. It does not work.
Iraq will be worse than Iran; I imagine even you are realizing it now.
If you are a Ruthless American (and I imagine this country was built partly on their shoulders), you can say the problem isn't that we tried to exert influence, only that we failed. But, in light of recent history, why don't we leave a little room for alternative interpretations.
You actually believe that "people in Iraq", i.e., normal citizens of Iraq, have anything whatsoever to do with this?
You are trying to minimize the undeniable fact that many Iraqis, not just Iranians and Syrians and Saudis, are participating in guerrilla war against the U.S. military. Many of them out of nationalism, or because of the Sunni-Shiite shuffle, or many just because a relative became American collateral damage.
Maybe even just because their wife and children were dragged outside at 2am and frisked and interrogated by 19 year olds from Kentucky on a tip provided by somebody getting paid to provide tips.
No matter how you justify invading them, being untruthful with yourself and others about the conduct and consequences of the war is dangerous, to your country, to its armed forces (which bear the brunt of the policies we advocate), and to yourself, ultimately, if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time for the next bit of blowback against westerners.
Living in a safer world starts every morning with you waking up and refusing to accept a little more rhetoric, and dealing a little bit more seriously with the truth instead. You urgently need the truth. And you deserve it.
So you're saying that full scale ethnic and religious genocide is the only way to modernize and democratize the mideast, to enable a free flow of information and a free exchange of ideas, and to empower the peoples of said nations to control their own personal and collective destinies in an environment that nurtures ideals of freedom?
If we started with non-oil producers in greater need, people actually would believe that was what we were doing.
You even mix the rhetoric of spreading democracy and going after oil in the same post.
Don't you see it? Or must we still talk about it abstractly, only as "what Iraqis believe..."
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
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?
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
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
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
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.
A Call For A New Slashdot Moderation Level!
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".
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.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
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.
We surrendered, we showed the terrorists the way to go.
Now I'm ashamed.
- 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.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
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
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
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.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
This is the first article I've seen that has slashdotted Slashdot!
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 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
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
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.
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.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
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.
what sig?
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?
If you knew who THEM was, you could arrest THEM ahead of time.
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.
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
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
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.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
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.
Except that Wal-Mart seems to be winning . . .
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.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
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.
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."
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.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
- Caused by the insane dual policy of:
- Invade the world to impose our form of society.
- Invite the world by opening the borders to all the people who want to exploit or hate us as a result.
- An excuse used by the neocons to get us to give up our freedom in exchange for their supposed "protection" against the resulting "terrorism".
- Mainly in the foreign policy interests of Israel.
?Seastead this.
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
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Cuz a truck bomb can do a wee bit more than shatter windows.
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...
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
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.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
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
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.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
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
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
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...
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
KJV - Exodus [32:27] And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
KJV - Jeremiah [18:21] Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
KJV - Ephesians [5:5] For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
All sorts of religious texts have been used throughout history to justify abhorrent acts. Nothing new. In my book, if they initiate force against the innocent, they're bad guys.
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
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.
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
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.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
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.
-- Boycott Shell
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.
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.
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.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
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.
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.
/05/left_conservatism.php ] movement, yearning for an imagined golden age which it hopes to recreate.
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
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
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.
You will never have experience until after you needed it.
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.
Place sig here.
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.
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
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.
/. readers when I say they are appreciated.
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
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.
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.
Wikipedia's coverage of the London Transport Explosions is very thorough and very-well organized.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
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.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
-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.
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!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Well, that is kind of what Saddam did
;) ). Getting into the reasons behind that would take a discussion all of its own.
Halabja was a quarter the population of Fallujah, and by far the largest of his attacks, and didn't have anywhere near a total loss like the GGP called for. Also, while mass graves of what in many cases were brutal atrocities have been turning up, they're nowhere near the numbers that people were putting forth before the war - under 20,000 with about a third of all suspected gravesites visited (in order of estimated importance), many of those being likely killed in the Iran-Iraq war and the Shia rebellion, and few in recent years. Still war crimes, mind you, but nothing like was portrayed pre-war.
lunatics (cough.. Iran cough..)
I don't agree with a lot of Iran's policies, but portraying them as "lunatics" is unfair. They're sane (and want to live) - they just *really, really don't like us* (less than Europe, even
Are they still killing people with tanks
Misnomer. You refer to the Tiananmen Square incident with the man standing up to a tank. The man was not killed by the tank; the standoff lasted well over an hour, after which the man actually climbed *on top* of the tank so he could talk with the tank commander; concerned onlookers grabbed him off of the tank and pulled him into the crowd. The exact number of people being killed by tanks by any means is unknown, but there were no reports, at the very least, of people being run over by tanks (a common myth).
The square had long been a site of major protests (being the symbolic heart of the country, just south of the ancient Forbidden City), including in 1919, 1976, and the famous one in 1989. The ratio of protesters to deaths was about the same as at Kent State (if you only count Beijing), but the total scale of the scene was far, far larger - over 100,000 protesters in the square and 1-2 million nationwide, with between a few hundred and a few thousand protesters killed and between a few dozen and few hundred soldiers killed (a classified NSA report and the Chinese official report being low, student reports and newspaper reports being high).
Are they still promoting slave labor in their factories
What you refer to is "prisoner labor", which, while still forced labor, carries a much different connotation, as the vast majority of political prisoners were released in the Deng Xiaoping reforms and most people don't have nearly as much of a problem with murderers and rapists being forced to work as they do with the notion of "slave labor". More specifically, you refer to Laogai - "reform through labor". For both the Laogai and Tiananmen Square incidents, I suggest you read the Wikipedia articles on the subjects - they've been edited back and forth so much that all sides are pretty well represented.
Are they still leaving their baby girls in the street to die
That's not a government practice (and is somewhat of a distortion of the actual practices that lead to China's gender imbalance, which is due to a variety of male-favoring practices, not simply "exposure"). It's an individual practice, and is most common in the countryside where the government exerts less influence. The practice is rooted in Confucian tradition, and has been made worse by Chinese attempts at population control. The government has made a number of (some would claim half-hearted) attempts to stop such practices, such as banning physicians from revealing the sex of a child before it is born to the parents (to prevent sex-selective abortions) and various girl-promotional events (which have been criticized from focusing on a male-centric "what would the world be like without women" perspective).
Is that the "World Leader" country you are talking about
Even with other countries knowing all of the bad stuff China has done (and you were only getting started - China's done a whole lot more), people *still* prefer Chi
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Thanks for the support & prays (which ever god they are directed to).
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
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.
Sure, on some level, suicide bombers and the like are obviously (in one sense, since they are willing to die) imbalanced.
... riciculous.
Yet, to conceive of terrorism as solely the result of mental imbalance is
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
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
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
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
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.
echo 33676832766569823265328479713269.8639857989Pq | dc