Six Bomb Blasts Around Central London

M3rk1n_Muffl3y writes "There were six explosions around London this morning. Information is still emerging, but looks like there were bombs detonated on a bus near Russel Square and several others on the Underground around the City and King's Cross. It's been difficult to reach people on their mobiles."

Comments

Why?

[chota]

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

Re:Why?

[Adams4President]

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

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

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

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

Re:Why?

[Adams4President]

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

Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[MoonFog]

Source

A previously unknown group calling itself "Secret Organisation al Qaeda in Europe" said it carried out the attacks.
My thoughts go out to everyone in London!

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Oxygen99]

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

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[meringuoid]

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

I'm still wondering whether it's some IRA faction, personally. These don't seem to have been really big bombs - we're seeing lots of wounded, not many dead. Jihadists tend to go for the big bodycount, while the Irish terrorists always preferred to cause disruption wherever possible. Although comparatively few are known dead - fewer than, say, Omagh, and so far nowhere near the bombings in Madrid or Bali - it has ruined all business in London today, and possibly tomorrow.

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

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[kevinbr]

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

This would benefit the IRA how?

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[stinerman]

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

Actually, that is probably why they attacked. It is much harder to recruit impressionable teens into your organization when there is no polarizing force (read: military occupation) in place. Terrorist groups rely on continued escalation by US/UK as a selling point for joining their organization. The terrorists thrive on this scenario:

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

I truly believe that if we left Iraq tomorrow, the insurgency would collapse in a short time because they'd have no real reason to exist. The true terrorists would have no freedom fighter status in which to cloak themselves, and the nationalist insurgents would likely turn against the terrorists.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[spoonyfork]

What fascinatingly reckless and uninformed speculation. Why not just say "I am completely ignorant of any facts in this matter." It is easier to type and gets your point across a lot quicker.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[squiggleslash]

There are relatively few confirmed deaths and casualties. It's known by everyone on the ground, so far as I can see, that the figures are much higher, it's just the government can't say "400 people are dead" until it has a chance to examine 400 bodies.

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

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

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

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[whopis]

This is very much not the IRA.

It is completely against their MO.

The IRA never seek to kill civilians, just to cause terror and as such have almost without exception issues coded warnings prior to the attacks.

What are you talking about?
Just because the IRA apologizes for one attack against civilians after 30 years doesn't mean it didn't happen!

1972 - Bloody Friday (civilians targeted)
1974 - Guildford pub bombing (civilians targeted)
1974 - Birmingham pub bombing (civilians targeted)
1982 - Hyde Park (military targeted)
1983 - Harrods department store (civilians targeted)
1984 - Brighton hotel (government officials targeted)
1987 - Enniskillen (civilians targeted)
1989 - Deal Marine Band (military targeted)
1992 - Omagh (civilian contractors working for military)
1993 - Warrington (children targeted)
1993 - Bishopsgate (civilians targeted)
1993 - Belfast Fish & Chip store (civilians targeted)
1996 - Canary Wharf (civilians targeted)
1996 - Manchester office building (civilians targeted)

It is only on rare occasion that IRA attacks in England have been targeted at the military. They almost always go for civilian targets.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[stinerman]

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

The problem is that you'd have to go back to the days of Babylon in order to find out "who started it". I'd say its the fault of all parties involved for letting this situation go on for as long as it has. The West needs to quit using vassal states to do its bidding and the Middle East needs to get away from blowing up innocent people in order to achieve their political goals.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[eoinmadden]

Mod parent up!

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

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

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Andy_R]

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

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[FrostedWheat]

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

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

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

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

I truly believe that if we left Iraq tomorrow, the insurgency would collapse in a short time because they'd have no real reason to exist. The true terrorists would have no freedom fighter status in which to cloak themselves, and the nationalist insurgents would likely turn against the terrorists

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

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

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

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

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[jafac]

I truly believe that if we left Iraq tomorrow, the insurgency would collapse in a short time because they'd have no real reason to exist. The true terrorists would have no freedom fighter status in which to cloak themselves, and the nationalist insurgents would likely turn against the terrorists.

I'd like to believe that too.

But look at History. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US funnelled money to groups like Al Qaeda, and elements of Pakistan's ISI, to aid them in fighting the Soviets. When the Soviets pulled out, there was a 10-year civil war that killed tens of thousands of civilians. Kabul was reduced to rubble. Guess who owned the country after that?

If the US pulled out of Iraq now, Iraq would become little more than a client state of Iran. Which would make countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria nervous as hell. Invading Iraq was a mistake of such huge proportion, given it's oil reserves, and the reserves of most of the nations neighboring Iraq, the end result will be effective control of a dangerously large proportion of world reserves by a single entity, should we pull out now. In other words, a major fucking disaster.

Personally, I think that the only workable option, right now, is partition. Give the Kurds a huge chunk of the north, and it's oil. Give the Shiites a chunk, and the Sunnis a chunk, including the fields borderinng with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, but above all, leave the Shiites a little short on the deal, because they're going to rely on Iranian assistance anyway. The other thing the US should do, is tap into the moderate Shiites - so far largely ignored in favor of the radical shiite politicians we put into power (the Chalabi gang). That would probably give us a better outcome.

Frankly, I think that the best outcome for the war-profiteers will be to continue occupation for a couple more years, and then pull out, leaving the region in a state of constant warfare for the next 100 years until the last drop of oil is sucked out of the ground. The war-profiteers will make the most money that way, which, of course, was the whole point of this excercise in the first place.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[demachina]

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

I'm pretty sure Anarchists were still quite active in the early 20th century. In the early twentieth century "anarchist" was the blanket condemnation applied to enemies of the state as was "communist" in the 50's and "terrorist" is today. There is something about political propaganda that mandates there be some in vogue term ending in "ist" which politicians can use to brand and denigrate all their enemies without having to think to much.

Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by someone usually refered to as an "anarchist", and in an important lesson we should learn from today, the overreaction by nation states to that act of terrorism did vastly more damage to those nation states than the act of terrorism itself. It triggered World War I, millions of casualties, the Russian Revolution, and the end of the Habsberg empire of which Ferdinand was an heir.

Kind of shows how one relatively easy to execute act can lead to widespread devestation when politicians go nuts in response.

9/11 as tragic as it was, lead to an overreaction by the U.S. that resulted in the Iraq war which has killed far more people than 9/11 did and will cost the U.S. far more than 9/11 did before its done.

The use of bombs against civilians as happened in Madrid and London is tragic. But, I'm afraid you really can't to holier than though about it when you drop bombs on civilians as the U.S., Britain and Israel have done as a matter of routine over the years. There isn't really any difference between the two acts other than the attempt by the U.S, Britain and Israel to rationalize it, the fact is the civilians are just as dead and maimed whether you use a suicide bomber or an F-16 to deliver the payload.

Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility

[demachina]

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

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

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

First, Dude, you need to stop kidding yourself.

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

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

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

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

Responsibility

[Simon (S2)]

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

(translation)

Re:Responsibility

[Tune]

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

--
All extremists should be taken out and shot

Re:Responsibility

[LK01]

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

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

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

travel updates for Southern england

[dj_paulgibbs]

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

Re:7 bombs

[AltGrendel]

There were initial reports of one that didn't explode. So there may have been 8 and they may have one to reverse engineer.

That could make things interesting.

Mobiles

[Zouden]

The BBC is speculating that the reason it's been difficult to reach people on their mobiles is because the government switched the network off, in anticipation of phone-triggered bombs.
This is apparently part of the government's planned response to this sort of situation (the bombs in Madrid were triggered by mobile phone).

Re:Mobiles

[ettlz]

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

Re:Mobiles

[Craster]

The Government switches off mobiles in London automatically in any state of emergency (terror-related or otherwise) to keep the spectrum free for the emergency services.

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

Re:Mobiles

[SnowZero]

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

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

FYI...

[Noryungi]

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

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

Mobile phone net

[Sallust]

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

Re:Mobile phone net

[Anonymous Coward]

No it hasn't.
Please don't repeat this sort of bullshit, and moderators - please don't pander to this knd of idiocy

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[orion41us]

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

The Blitz Comes to London

[Mr. Foogle]

Not my analysis but love him or loathe his viewpoint Wretchard makes valid points.

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/07/blitz- comes-to-london.html

Wow.

[ironwill96]

I'm amazed at how /.ers make jokes about everything, including people dying in terrorist attacks. We didn't find it very funny when someone crashed planes into our skyscrapers but when Europeans die it's a joke?

Let's be a little bit considerate. Not all /.ers are U.S., i'm sure we have lots of British readers here.

Re:Wow.

[AccUser]

Cracking jokes in stressful situations is known to help people cope. My wife used to work in Accident & Emergency, and from the things she told me, Paramedics have the sickest sense of humour.

Re:Wow.

[tgd]

People die in a lot of ways.

More people, statistically, will die today on US highways than have been reported so far in London.

An order of magnitude more will die of smoking related diseases in the US.

Even more will die of starvation globally. Or natural causes.

People make jokes about things that stress them out. Its how people cope, and people shouldn't be made to feel bad about it. Its human nature. Its the political correctness bullshit that its somehow wrong that keeps people from dealing with this kind of emotional stress. Joking is a BIG part of getting past things like that.

Yes, it may be insensitive, but you can't think of a thing to say that isn't going to offend someone somewhere.

Re:Wow.

[Kidbro]

I am European. I am an ex resident of London, and I have friends in London.
And yes, I'm making jokes about it.
Making jokes about something does not mean you don't take it seriously. Neither does it mean you disrespect anybody. It just means that you, for a moment, want to make someone laugh.

Yes, I made jokes about 9/11. I made jokes about when 60 people died in a fire in the house next to mine, and I made jokes about when a colleague I really liked killed himself in car crash (yes, it was most definitely his own fault).

If you think that means these people are "just a joke" to me, you... I lack the words, even - it's that stupid.

To our British friends

[wazzzup]

We stand and mourn with you today. I am truly sorry for the losses you have incurred and weep with you in this terrible moment.

I hope someday my children will understand terrorism as a savage relic of the past but I do not hold much hope for that.

Be strong people of England.

Re:To our British friends

[Martin Spamer]

Be strong people of England.

You can be assured the people of the Briton will never surrender to Terrorism. We faced down the IRA for 30 years despite their attacks being many times more often and many time more serious in casualties and damages each year.

Get the latest from BBC

[Codeala]

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

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

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

Re:First Post

[MoonFog]

An Al Qaeda groups has claimed responsibility already.

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

Re:Terrible.

[Guppy06]

The recent example of Spain seems to blow holes in both of those theories. I doubt anybody in Washington or London would want to do anything that might push the UK public against the war enough to force a pull-out.

"In any case, we should bomb Mecca every time something like this happens."

The capital of Saudi Arabia is Riyadh. All you're proposing is the random killing of random Muslism, who may or may not be Saudi (or even Arab), considering Mecca's status as a pilgrimage destination. Way to take the high road there.

Our thoughts & prayers go out to the UK

[white1827]

To preface, we here in the US are certainly sending our thoughts and prayers to the UK today. However, I am disappointed to hear that the stock markets are selling off just because of terrorism. This sort of mindless panic is exactly what they are trying to achieve. To truly defeat terrorism, we have to learn to chin up and plod onward with our lives. If we cower in fear and panic, we allow them to win.

Cellphone system near breakdown

[CdBee]

I'm 20 miles out but many friends work in London. it's taken several hours to confirm they're all safe

My closest friends were 10 minutes late on the train.. and missed the aldgate bomb by 10 minutes as a result

All the stupid people who thought war could make us safer are to blame for this. Thank you, Tony Blair. You stopped the IRA bombing london then started al Qaida doing it. Sheer fucking genius.

As it breaks...

[irokie]

Been following this for the last 3 hours.
Apparently the Army are now on the streets of london, trying to help EMTs get to the injured, there's a train full of people still stuck underground. Public transport hs been shutdown in London and people are being advised to stay where they are and not go into the city.
Reports are that there were 6 bombs, 3 on buses and 3 on subway trains.

Tony Blair is on his way back to London from the G8 summit in Edinburgh

Allegedly, al Qa'eda are claiming responsibility, but i haven't been able to find a definite source on this.

BBC.co.uk has been swamped, but news.bbc.co.uk is still available (last i checked)

This pisses me off royally... London was set to celebrate getting the Olympics today, huge open air celebrations, but that's all been cancelled. With all the humanitarian work that's been happening in the last weeks, you'd think that malcontents would be a little less belligerent. Progress is being made.
Now the British (who have masses of experience dealing with terrorists) will be pissed off, and the Americans have an excuse to throw their weight around even more...

Also, from talking to people in a few places, everyone seems to be thinking "Are we next?". Yes the British went into Iraq and Afghanistan, but they're been fairly well controlled for the most part. This is extremism at its worst. I don't want to kill the people who did this, i want to slap them in the face and tell them to cop themselves on... this is exactly the opposite of progress.

Some details

[LizardKing]

I was in the midst of this when it happened. The Metropolitan line was halted, then the Jubilee. The train driver announced a "power surge on the combine", which is probably a prearranged message to prevent panic in an emergency. Trains were then brought into the nearest station and the passengers requested to evacuate. The tube staff were very calm and efficient, and I didn't see any panic. There was defnitely a sense that something unusual had happened, and people were mostly silent as we filed out to the sound of recorded evacuation messages.

Anyone trying to contact friends and relatives, please don't panic if you cannot get through. the cellphone networks are being taking in and out of public service so that the emergency services can use them reliably. Same may be true for regular phone lines.

Re:Some details

[ynnaD]

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

I was on the central line eastbound going from oxford circus at about 09:20, and there was an announcement that due to a suspect package Bank and one other station was closed. On the next stop the driver then announced that the whole underground system was closed to a power failure and asked everybody to leave the station immediately.

Afterwards, found that my mobile did not work at all. I walked back to victoria station to try and catch a train home and found it closed off. One of the policemen there said that the mobile network had been closed in london (hence a lot of people using phone boxes), and that all public services were cancelled.

I managed to then walk down to clapham junction and catch a train home from there.

Re:More details

[bheading]

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

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

Watch the Law

[FrostedWheat]

It will be interesting to see how the government reacts to this. I'm almost certain they will use this to push through laws like the ID cards and maybe even worse.

Re:Watch the Law

[ocelotbob]

Indeed. What they will fail to say, is just like 9/11, all a more stringent ID program would do is result in burnt bodies with the addition of burnt identification cards.

Fuck you, man.

[James A. D. Joyce]

I'm from London and I appreciated it. Stop trying to stamp out humour just because of a few explosions.

Clever

[BigBadBus]

Whomever did this was very clever. If you look at a map of the London underground/subway, the bombs have taken out all the tube lines in Central London. In effect, the transport network has been crippled.

Re:Clever

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Why is it people use "very clever" when they spot the most trivial of strategies? Underestimating the enemy is the biggest mistake you can make. The people who carried out the attacks may have lived in London for years before it happened and may have been as familiar with the public transport as anyone else who lived there. They may even have been Londoners recruited in London.

Re:Terrible.

[stinerman]

The GP's comment was obviously tongue-in-cheek. Notice his .sig as well as his comment history.

Re:Fucking Animals

[ElfKnight]

The "War on Terror" is a meaningless phrase used to justify anything that the US feels like doing in another country.

If you were less keen on wiping people out who disagree with you, there might be less people who disagreed with you.

And Londeners have known about terrorism for decades due to the bombing activities of the IRA - partly funded by American donations. Go figure.

Re:Terrible.

[erikkemperman]

[..] bombing random developing-world nations is probably not any sort of solution.

Sweet Jesus, does Dubya know about this?

Re:Fucking Animals

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

Let this be a lesson for Londoners and the rest of the world that terrorism can strike anywhere, and appeasing them will only make them stronger.

Taking them seriously by instigating overt and invasive security measures is exactly the sort of appeasment and response they want.

This was well planned, and has - so far - had exactly the result the terrorists wanted, London has ground to a standstill with public transport closed for fear of further attacks. London's stock exchange has taken a bit of a tumble, and according to the BBC it has disrupted the G8 summit.

Not a bad return on the investment in explosives, and I'm sure you could've covered that by betting on the effect on the markets.

Maybe 4 bombs

[Misanthropic Lycanth]

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

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[falemagn]

I think now is a good time to remind people that the war on terrorism could not have prevented this.

In fact, it quite possibly triggered it.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[DigitumDei]

I think the official count is at 3 train bombs and the 1 bus.

My company is streaming Sky News on our LAN, and they seem to be changing the numbers regularly.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Loco3KGT]

Excellent point.

I'm so glad the first Gulf War and WWII were ended by a round table discussions.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[woginuk]

I think now is a good time to remind people that the war on terrorism could not have prevented this.

I agree totally. However, I would like to remind people that the war on terror possibly prevented many more such incidents.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[DigitumDei]

Actually, advance science, stop our reliance on crude oil, and then just leave them the fuck alone.

Either that or complete all out war where we level their countries to the ground and exterminate their people (note to those about to mod as troll, this is not something I support).

The problem is western governments meddle in middle eastern affairs because they need the region to be "compliant". They don't want to get too involved, but at the same time they've spent several decades meddling (usually with disasterous side effects) and thus building up the hatred.

Of course the amount of hatred that has built up will probably take just as many decades to go way.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Cat_Byte]

I think now is a good time to remind people that the war on terrorism could not have prevented this.
Read about why they did this. It was in retaliation for roles in Afghanistan partly. Sept 11 prompted the destruction of the terrorist camps there. Thousands of people in the same organizations that live to blow up innocent people were taken out. I think quite a few were stopped since obviously...they are dead.

Most importantly, I must point out talking to the terrorists would not have prevented this either. You can't explain to them that Afghanistan was prompted by the terrorists themselves and nothing was done about them for years even though governments knew about them until they killed thousands of innocent people. Leaving them alone was the worst thing to do.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid moderators who think that any controversial statement is made simply to get a rise out of someone else. They don't seem to be able to conceive of the fact that there really are different opinions and that people really do think differently than themselves, and that posting an opinion that differs from the officially sanctioned /. stance might possibly be legitimate and not an attempt to spin soneone up.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[VikingDBA]

People are dead. Others are injured. Families are grieving. and your using this to make a political point. Perhaps our sympathy and prayers would be more appropriate right now.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[MartinG]

the war on terrorism could not have prevented this.

No, but they are bored of that now anyway. It's the war on civil liberties they will try this time around.

"QUICK! Arrest some people and hold them without charge! Then introduce national ID cards."

If those measures don't eliminate the existance of bombs and make everyone happy then I don't know what will.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[BigDogCH]

True, but lets not include Iraq in "the war on terror". According to the U.S. state department, Iraq was the only county in the middle east which did NOT have any al Qaeda connections. Although I suppose they do now, so I guess we have turned it into a "war on terror". Oh yeah, and lets not forget that we could have killed al Zarqawi in the past, because we knew right where he was and we had had him cornered. This was not our agenda however, so we let him live.

I would also like to point out that a "War" is often defined as clashing armies, or states, or coilitions. Not generally civilians. You cannot have a "war" on terror. War simply spreads more terror. If a people are being oppressed (from their prespective, not ours), they will spread terror against their oppressors. A man is the most dangerous when you take away his hopes and dreams, and from their perspective this is exactly what we have done (I am sure I stole that quote from somewhere). Lets not forget that only one nation has ever used a Nuclear Bomb during warfare, and it was used on civilians, TO SPREAD TERROR!

At least the polls are starting to show that Americans have started to figure out that Bush is evil, however it is too bad it took this long! Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

You're conflating the current "War on Terrorism" with opposition to terrorism. The two aren't the same. There are many of us who feel that terrorist need to be opposed but that the current approach is precisely the least effective way to accomplish it.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[colinrichardday]

Sympathy yes, but what we need is less prayer and more thought.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[PopCulture]

Leaving them alone was the worst thing to do.

no- i disagree. Invading Iraq (no connections to 9/11, Al-Quada) was the worst thing to do. This administration losing focus on afghanistan and Bush telling the nation that he didn't care about Osama Bin Laden was the worst thing to do. Spreading our military so thin to fight a pointless war in Iraq that destabilized the entire region, and let Iraq become an open border den of terrorist activity, with extremists pouring in from nearly every country in the region was the worst thing to do.

claiming a "war on terror" with no tangible goal, no exit strategy, no fundamental way to achieve victory was the worst thing to do.

And we never really left "them" alone. Who is "them" anyway? Every single militant group who threatens us? there's probably tens of thousands of "those". Al Zarquawi had NO ties to Al-Quada untill we invaded Iraq... we are creating enemies faster than we can kill them.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

america's astoundingly arrogant foreign policy?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[TrappedByMyself]

War. The US attacked places bin Laden cared about. It doesn't justify his actions but it does appear to be the motivating factor.

I'm thinking hard, but who did the US ATTACK that bin Laden cared about?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Various Assortments]

Unless the people discussing it are rescue workers standing around instead of doing their job, the discussion will have no effect on the dead, the survivors, or the grieving.

It seems to me that you're trying to use shame/guilt to silence a free discussion.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[cyberbob2010]

"Oh please, then what triggered 9/11?"


maybe our support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip? we have given the Israeli's millions of dollars AND weapons and aircraft. what have we given the people whos land we took to give to them? several hundred thousand dollars and no protection from a military who has killed thousands of palistinian children.

think about it - if 10 or 20 years ago an american hellicopter came in and blew up your dad or your uncle or your brother or your friend you'd be pissed wouldn't you. Lucky for you, you're American. You will most likely never have to experience someone coming onto your soil and accidentally killing your friends and/or family because they had to shove their nose where it didnt belong. Unfortunately, this new "war on terror" in a nation that never once supported bin laden (in fact, bin laden HATED hussein) and who never once threatened or attacked any US citizen outside of their own country - is creating the next generation of terrorist. Look at the children you see in the news footage now - we are killing their big brothers, fathers and uncles, and because of it - your child may be stuck fighting them in the next war.

I'm not saying that they are right in what they do . All I'm saying is that perhaps we should pick the stick from our own eye before we attempt to pick the splinter from theirs.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[stuntpope]

The USA didn't attack Saudi Arabia. It was the US (infidel) presence in (holy) Arabia that Bin Laden specifically mentioned in his pre-9/11 declaration of war against the USA.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[ryanov]

The "mindset of the left" phrasing is rhetoric that is designed to make people angry -- I see through it and it's not going to work. You cannot separate people into two groups.

That aside, I'm sorry, but you can't just say "well, he was a bad guy, we had to do it regardless of the reason" after all of the lying and deception that this administration is guilty with. THAT is what everyone is really pissed off at. Everyone who is looking at this clusterfuck with their eyes open knows damn well that Bush didn't give a shit about the people of Iraq, but used that as his second or third reason that this "had to be done." THAT is what is evil.

PS: Kuwait was slant-drilling into Iraqi oilfields. Iraq told the US, warned that they were going to invade. We said "meh, whatever." On July 16, a meeting of OPEC ("Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries") in Geneva ended with Iraq once more threatening military force against Kuwait for exceeding production quotas and for violating the agreement on drilling rights in the Rumaila oil field, a banana shaped area spanning both sides of the common border. Iraq charged Kuwait with cheating: taking more than its fair share of the oil in the field by using slant drilling techniques. Iraq further complained that Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates had refused to cancel Iraq's debts from its war with Iran.

The next day, July 17, Saddam threatened to use force against any Arab oil exporters who refused to abide by their production quotas. The day after this threat, July 18, Saddam massed 30,000 Iraqi troops on his border with Kuwait. The U.S. Senate voted sanctions against Iraq.

On July 25, Egypt reported that Saddam was willing to settle his differences with Kuwait peacefully. The same day, Saddam was told by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, in a meeting in Baghdad that the United States had "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydataba se/gulf_war.htm .
Some more of that in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United _States_(1988-present)

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[Zeinfeld]

Oh please, then what triggered 9/11?

Bin Laden was really upset by the presence of 'infidel' troops in Saudi Arabia. They were a bit inconveniently situated for Bin Laden's aspiration of starting a coup.

Bin Laden's primary focus has always been Saud but Al Zawahiri, often misleadingly referred to as 'Bin Laden's number 2' has been a terrorist for 30 years and his primary focus is Israel. Al Zawahiri was heavily involved in the murder of President Saddat for signing the camp David agreement. Al Zawahiri is the ideological leader of Al Qaeda.

The issue here is not what triggered the attack, the issue is why Al Qaeda was allowed to escape. The Afghan campaign should have been completed before any new military engagement was planned. Instead troops were being pulled from Afghanistan before the job was done. The result was that instead of putting NATO troops on the ground at the Torra Borra the US was withdrawing its specialist forces to prepare for the invasion of Iraq.

Even if Bush's claim that Saddam was involved in 9/11 were true (it has never been substantiated) it was a major tactical error to open a second front before the first was secure.

A second major error was trusting Musharaff, the prime funder and instigator of the Taleban. The democratically elected government of Pakistan had tried to dismiss Musharaff because he had been supporting terrorist groups in Cashmire that looked likely to start a full scale war with India.

The idea that Musharaff is seriously committed to the 'war on terror' is ridiculous. He is only providing the minimum of compliance. He depends on the support of the Islamists to remain in power.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[iwadasn]

There's more to the situation.

Islam has always been a melded church and state, even more so than the Catholics ever did. For many years (up to the present) there has been essentially no difference between clerics and rulers, usually they were the same people, still are. This causes pervasive problems. Not the least of which is that those who hold the reigns of government are religiously obligated to eradicate the infidels (both the Koran and bible are very clear about converting or killing nonbelievers). Just as bad (and we see some of this in the States) is that the government feels the need to ban or repress science, as both religion and science are claiming to have the truth, and they can't both be right. This makes Theocracies third world countries, and it makes the citizens jealous of those who are not so backwards.

Theocracy and democracy cannot easily coexist, just as Communism and Capitalism have trouble. A Theocracy next to a democracy finds that many of its citizens would flow over the border to join the heathens, and those left behind would hate the outsiders for reasons related to religious dogma and jealousy. You just can't build your dreams on forcing people to strictly adhere to a set of rules if there is a beautiful country nearby without those rules. This will cause persistent conflict that cannot be eliminated without eliminating either Democracy or Theocracy, I know which one I'll pick. One way or another, Theocracy has got to go, there will be no peace until it does.

That being said, the US hasn't been terribly careful in picking its battles (literally and figuratively), but we didn't cause the problem. The problem will continue until there is a concrete change in the world dynamic, leaving them alone won't solve anything. If they were powerful enough to destroy us, they would have done so long ago. We have been powerful enough to destroy them for many years, and yet we have not done so. Fortunately, the balance of power is not likely to ever change.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[m50d]

FFS, if people dying shouldn't affect politics then what the hell should?

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[MagikSlinger]

I agree totally. However, I would like to remind people that the war on terror possibly prevented many more such incidents.

I'm reminded of Lisa Simpson:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: *Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money* Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Lisa: *Lisa shakes head in refusal at first, then takes the exchange*

Re:Maybe 4 bombs

[danheskett]

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

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

So here is the thing about your comment.

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Only two dead so far...

[Jarnis]

I'm quite sure by the time they have cleaned up the mess underground, there will be more dead... the numbers always start low, because the emergency services are kinda too busy trying to help the living ones - body counts can wait until everyone still alive is cared for.

If a bomb of any real size blows up in an enclosed subway car during a rush hour... I can't see how there could be no deaths next to it. And if the count of 6 blasts in subways is true, that means the body count is definitely going to rise a lot. '2 dead' would mean that four of those blasts didn't kill anyone. With hundreds of wounded already in hospitals... And we know that one bomb was strong enough to blow off the whole roof of a london bus, so it was no firecracker...

People in the UK are used to it.

[caluml]

Mind you, it's not much of a difference from the days when terrorists would go to dinners at the White House, to fundraise, and use the hundreds of thousands of dollars given by misguided "Irish" Americans to buy guns and bombs to kill innocent UK civilians in pubs, bars, shops, and town centres.
Seems to have gone out of favour after 11th Sept 01. Funny how it's not funny when it starts happening to you, isn't it?

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[kahei]

FFS man, have you been asleep??

The IRA are noble freedom fighters who are combating oppression by striking at the heart of their oppressors, and that's why the USA has generously aided their noble cause.

Al-Qaeda are evil terrorists who are spreading misery by targeting civilians and landmarks, and that's why the USA has nobly opposed their evil agenda.

Could the difference BE more obvious? They don't even wear the same headgear; the IRA typically wear balaclavas because they are a perfectly sensible measure to avoid vicious British retaliation, and Al-Qaeda typically wear scarfy things because they are sinister and menacing symbols of terror.

They aren't funded the same way either. The IRA are funded partly by contributions and partly by the drug trade, which they are forced to get involved with brutal oppression leaves them no choice. Al-Qaede are funded partly by contributions and partly by the drug trade, which they are involved with because it suits their naturally evil state of mind.

If the difference still isn't clear, hang out with some Americans until it is.

Re:People in the UK are used to it.

[perly-king-69]

Although not as funny, let's not forget: 30 years ago Nelson Mandela was a dangerous terrorist. Last night he gave a video message to the G8....

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Re:The real bugger is...

[mykdavies]

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

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

Re:Mobile network switched off...

[Ford Prefect]

Capacity being diverted to emergency services, too.

It's really not surprising the phones have gone down - it seems to go pretty far afield. For instance, I told a colleague in Brussels what had happened, and she understandably tried getting hold of friends in London. Everyone's fine, fortunately, but it seems anyone working or living in London is being inundated with calls right now.

The asynchronous nature of stuff like SMSes and email might be an advantage if you're trying to get hold of someone - it's not like a phone call which needs to connect immediately. Alternatively, try phoning a (non-London) friend or relative of the person you're trying to contact, in case they've heard already.

Re:Fucking Animals

[cassidyc]

Londoners are well aware of terrorist attacks, for a long while a lot of you yanks were funding this little organisation that called itself the IRA.

Re:Seven explosions

[Max Romantschuk]

I think I can speak for everyone when i say

FUCK THE TERRORISTS

I have to say I agree, there's really no better way to put it.

What I personally will never, ever get around is how someone can become so sick that they believe they are doing the Right Thing when participating in terror acts such as this. Things like this always have me wondering if humanity will end up distroying itself sooner rather than later. Yet I hope that world peace can some day be a reality. Without hope there's not much left, is there?

Re:At the moment

[Oxygen99]

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

Large article on Wikipedia

[gibbo2]

Wikipedia article up already, good work Wiki editors

Re:More details

[rxmd]

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

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

From London

[oniony]

It's been chaos here this morning. I take the overground train to work and had to walk past a couple of tube (Undergound) stations this morning. Both were closed which was unusual, but not unheard of.

The news has slowly unfurled over the course of the morning. The first incident to the east of the centre was at 9:00. Up until 10:30, the news were still claiming the problems were caused by the power supply. When the first bus was reported this obviously started to break down but it was another 20 minutes or so before the news confirmed that he problems were down to terrorists. Additional spots have been appearing on the map over the course of the morning and it's at seven at the moment.

Outside the streets are very empty, both of cars and pedestrians. I think almost everyone who can has stayed in their offices. Many shops have closed up and gone home so there is an eery feeling walking about the streets.

I've not yet visited any of the incident sites and, from what I've heard, they've now been cordened off.

Getting home will be very difficult with the mass transport systems out of action. During previous strike action the streets get very busy and I fear for will happen if the terrorists have planned anything else when the streets are busy at rush hour this evening.

Re:The real bugger is...

[rxmd]

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

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

In WWII, Stalin deliberately had German commanders assassinated if they were too easy on the native population. If a commander committed atrocities, Stalin reckoned that it would only let people rally against the Germans. So he let the atrocious commanders live, just to keep the atmosphere of conflict going. It's the same thing here, and it's been going in the Middle East for years.

Re:First Post

[Lurker McLurker]

"Extreme anti-globalisation people" couldn't pull this off. You need to be a rich capitalist like Osama Bin Laden to have access to the necessary resources. Preferably, you should also (like Bin Laden) have the backing of a Western power, or have had it in the past.

Anarchists also aren't organised enough. Violence by these groups tends to be more along the lines of throwing bricks. Of course, only a tiny proportion of the anti-globalisation movement is violent.

Re:What will the EU do?

[Peeteriz]

The more desparate you make the people in Iraq, the more recruits are easily available for terrorist groups.

Simply 'pressing more' doesn't achieve your goals of safety, it works against it.

The only pressure that would 'kill them at the source' would be a full-scale genocide, killing everybody of a threatening (ethnical, religious, etc) group, their relatives, the relatives of relatives, their friends, relatives of their friends....

But that's not a 'good' action from anybody's viewpoint, and even that will not be enough to stop all potential terrorists.

Count has to be higher

[alistair]

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

I am writing this from an office block over the road from Bishopsgate and there is almost nothing on the roads apart from police and emergency veicles.I got caught halfway to work this morning and had to walk the rest of the way, I wish I had walked home instead but for a long time the announcements were talking of power failure rather than bombs and everyone assumed they would get the power working again. I guess this was a way of preventing panic.

So I hope and pray the numbers are low but the thoughs of my colleages and I are with those who were caught in these awful events, as they were with the people in 9/11. I will also be going to give blood as soon as they announce where we can do this.

Re:Count has to be higher

[ds_job]

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

Re: Bomb blasts in London

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

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

C.D. Thomson

[VC]

I missed the kingscross one by 15 mins. As i left kings cross they were making announcments that if there was a "C.D.Thomson" on the platform could they make them selves known to staff. Might have been a bag left on the platform or train, or it might have been a coded message to staff. This was at 8:32 on the metropoliton line platform.

A Note of Solidarity

[tjstork]

I saw 9/11 on a giant screen. I was working next to a trade floor at
the time. The company had installed a really large set of screens at
the end of the floor to keep traders up to current events. Various
financial news channels would be on at any given point in time, and on
slow days, the occasional sporting event.

Jeff, a new hire along with me, stopped by my desk. He said, you have
to see this, a plane just hit the World Trade Center. So we went back
to the floor and stared at dumb amazement at the big screen, and
watched the whole sorry show. I remember talking at that time with
other people. All of is new it was an act of war, but some of us
realized that our country would never be the same again. We looked at
other as the buildings collapsed, and said, "well, we are a police
state now." Despite all the platitudes of life moving on as normal, we
all knew in some way that our country as we knew it was gone.

There were some rumours of planes also targetted buildings in
Philadelphia, where my mother worked. There was of course no way to
get in touch with anyone. All the phones were jammed and the main web
sites were blocked because they were being pounded on so much. I
managed to do as much work as I could, as if I could blot it out. They
let us go early that day. Many of the traders had collegues in New
York.

When I came home that day my wife had found the largest American flag
we had and hung it up. She had actually been rather opposed to hanging
up American flags. One of those liberals that thought patriotism was
tacky, she wrote in her then journal. "Today I know what it means to
be American." And then, we turned the TV off and the radio off. I
couldn't watch it any more. I didn't want to think about it. But
later on that evening I had occasion to go the store and I turned on
NPR for a quick update.

There was the BBC, and with typical British class and elegance they
dispatched with all the usual platitudes and did the simple thing.
They conjured up an orchestra which played the Star Spangled Banner.
And that time was the only time I actually cried at all over 9/11. And
I will never forget that moment of solidarity with the British people,
will never forget that in more than my lifetime, from World War II, the
Cold War, and now in Iraq, the cause of freedom, freedom of the seas,
freedom from tyranny, freedom of the press, and freedom of trade, has
been a joint American and British project. For generations now, the
United States has never had a better friend or more noble ally than the
United Kingdom.

I hope that casualties are few in London. I hope that the number of
people that perished are small. I hope that the wounded will recover.
I hope that your nation does not go as crazy as ours did. The world
needs the voice of British reason to counter American romance. Today
I'm going to go buy a Union Jack and hang it up on my house. Your
former colonies are with you. We are all British today.

Thank You for Posting This Story

[Evil W1zard]

Any terrorist attack on any soil is a tragedy. The meaningless death of innocent people is a horrible and cowardly act. I really appreciate everyone posting news here and other useful information. I am not British, but that does not lessen the sorrow I feel for those who will have lost friends and family because of this act.

On a side note. In my opinion this is not the appropriate time to start a post flamewar about how Western society has done this or that. Any civilized person should be able to look at this kind of act and know that it is wrong to have happened. This will probably be flamebait, but I really hope people consider that there are a lot of worried people out there right now that are looking to places like this for information because friends and family may be in harms way. Having to sort through posts that say You Deserve This because blah blah blah is inappropriate and cold-hearted.

Excellent Wikipedia page on the Bombs

[jonathan_ingram]

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

Re:More details

[Alex P Keaton in da]

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

Re:More details

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Someone from the UK

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I'm from the UK (an hour from London) and can I just say something here.

I couldn't careless. The IRA did this loads of times, lots of people have died in the same situations spread out over a couple of weeks. It used to be a fact of life that this happens. 1 event isn't a huge issue.

Save the pity and shock for else where. It's not needed and hopefully we won't whore this like September 11th was.

I know this'll get marked troll but I think it's an opinion we NEED to see put out. Some of us couldn't careless, it won't stop our lives any more then seeing a giant pink elephant would.

It happened, it's over and done with, next please.

Re:Someone from the UK

[horza]

Just texted my brother who commutes and works right around where the bomb blasts are to ask if he was ok. He texted me back say, "Sure. Just watching out for low flying planes ;-)".

I agree, we are used to this from the IRA days. My condolences to anyone who has lost someone. These lunatics need to be stopped. Still against ID cards though, no matter how the government will try and spin this in its favour.

Phillip.

Re:Someone from the UK

[GypC]

I have to agree that the best thing the British and the Western media could do is report the facts, get on with other news, dust ourselves off and continue on as if nothing happened (while behind the scenes we work as hard as ever to discover and terminate terrorist cells).

It won't happen, but it would be the best course of action.

Re:Someone from the UK

[shish]

if we were to get rid of useless people like you around the planet, then maybe we can save enough money to help africa with food and other basic needs.....

We already have plenty, too much in fact. We're just too busy crying over tens of people who've died in a one-off event and can't be brought back to care for the thousands who die daily and can be saved in the future.

Re:More details

[caluml]

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

Re:More details

[DigitumDei]

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

Re:Fucking Animals

[meringuoid]

i cant believe you people dare politicize a trajedy like this.

Terrorism is inherently political. A terrorist does what he does not out of sheer spite but in order to achieve political and ideological goals.

This whole event was political from the beginning. Whether the politics in question are those of Islamic extremism, anti-G8 anarchism or Irish republicanism remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that the bombings were politically motivated.

Re:More details

[uncommonlygood]

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

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

conspiracy theory

[fredu]

So now they're burrying the global warming issues and starting to talk about including new clauses for terrorism prevention. And Bush is very pleased with the resolution the G8 leaders took. It all seems so very convenient...

Be prepared to see many conspiracy-theory books in stores soon...

Re:What will the EU do?

[Anonymous Coward]

If "they" don't care about "us", it's only because we've shown that we don't care about them. 3000 westerners die on 9/11, and the world stops for a week and ripples continue to be felt four years later. Meanwhile, 30,000 people die from the effects of poverty each motherfucking day and the world carries on as normal and pushing for even greater "liberalisation" of their markets. Don't try to hide behind "poverty happens" either; it's largely a predictable outcome from the policies we deliberately and knowingly push onto the afflicted people in order to maintain and enhance our material quality of life. Killing a few more of "them" will make zero difference.

We make me sick.

Re:Seven explosions

[dalutong]

You mean like samuel adams when he tarred and feathered the british loyalists (civilians) and paraded them around in public?

or the insurgents (foreign-funded by the french) that fought against the legitimate british rulers?

or the guerrilla attacks that were considered "barbaric" but used because they were the only means the american rebellion had of beating the british?

i'm not trying to say our "founding fathers" were terrorists -- i'm just saying that these concepts are relative.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[Guppy06]

"What about the attack on the USS Cole"

I take issue with listing this as a "terrorist attack." The USS Cole is a US-flagged vessel of war, and if that's not a valid military target then I don't know what is.

It was a surprise attack, it was a suicide attack, but it was a perfectly legal and valid attack by just about any standard.

I was on my way to work when it happened

[Tim C]

Thankfully, I was late, so I missed the worst of it. My train was held at one of the stations on the way in because of "power surges" in multiple locations. I finally made it to Fenchurch Street (just by the Tower of London) and, having heard that the District Line was suspended, set off about finding a bus.

The stop that the signs directed me to was on a road that the police were cordoning off as I arrived. I saw several police cars and fire engines, and a group of dazed-looking people being escorted away from some buses, clutching bits of paper. (I'm assuming that the paper was for taking statements)

Given that it was a reasonably nice day at the time, I decided to walk the rest of the way. On the journey (which took about an hour or so) I heard lots of sirens and helicopters, and saw quite a few police cars and fire engines (including one with "COMMAND UNIT" painted on the side). I also saw an unmarked car driven by someone not in uniform, tearing along with siren blaring and a stick-on light flashing. That gave me pause; the plain-clothes guys don't get called out for "power surges", even if they've caused a transformer or two to blow.

Now, everything's pretty quiet. The 'phone networks are getting back to normal, although for a while it was hard to get through - it took me a couple of dozen tries to get through to my girlfriend and parents (who knew more about what was going on than I did, walking through central London), but nothing that you wouldn't expect from everyone calling everyone else (eg as they do on NYE).

Apart from that, and the complete shut down of transport in central London (including the whole of hte Tube network), everything is more or less as it is any other day. The streets are a little quieter, and some shops are closed, but apart from that you could be forgiven for not realising that anything had happened. That won't be the case in the areas directly affected, but here in the West End, it's almost like any other day.

The news is a different story, of course, and there are rumours and counter rumours flying around like crazy. Talk of people being shot by police, suicide bombers in Canary Wharf (lots of financial companies there), more bombs being found, uncomfirmed reports of it being a terrorist attack; it's hard to tell what's true and what isn't.

(As I type this, I can hear more sirens out in the streets below)

My heart goes out to those that were caught up in it, and the people who have lost loved ones or who simply can't contact them to find out.

Re:Sounds good to me.

[Peeteriz]

Everyone of who exactly ?
Do you know who is responsible ?
If so, are you sure that you are right ?

Re:Sounds good to me.

[Qzukk]

I'm all for killing every God-damned one of 'em.

That's funny, so are they. Welcome to the moral low ground.

Re:More details

[sheriff_p]

No effect?

You mean, other than the fact London has been a major target for terrorists for nigh-on 4 years, and this is the first attack to not have been thwated?

+Pete

Re:More details

[JaF893]

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

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

Re:What will the EU do?

[daveschroeder]

Um, wow. You actually believe that "people in Iraq", i.e., normal citizens of Iraq, have anything whatsoever to do with this?

If by "people in Iraq" you mean radical Panislamic terrorists from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and many places OTHER than Iraq, who believe there should be a single Islamic theocracy across the whole of the mideast that is the rightful seat of government for the world, then yes, absolutely.

I find this all or nothing view - especially coming from an argument point that tends to condemn "all or nothing, black and white" views - rather disconcerting.

So you're saying that full scale ethnic and religious genocide is the only way to modernize and democratize the mideast, to enable a free flow of information and a free exchange of ideas, and to empower the peoples of said nations to control their own personal and collective destinies in an environment that nurtures ideals of freedom? (Note: any belief that terrorist ideals or those of Panislamic radicals are "just as valid" as, e.g., Western democratic ideals is pure, unadulterated moral relativism.)

That the only logical solution is to pack up, and let the threat of Panislamic radicalism fester and grow in the mideast, and to be content to deal with brutal terrorist attacks, regardless of whether more people die from "smoking" or "car accidents" each year?

Smoking is a choice. Car accidents have the word "accident" in the name for a reason. A terrorist attack is a deliberate decision on the part of another human to kill as many people, usually innocent, in the target site as is practical or possible. Additionally, the reason why airline disasters (not referring to 9/11, here) are so heavily covered even as many more die from other reasons is because larger incidents resonate negatively with people. People don't like the idea of dozens of hundreds of people dying at once. It scares them. It shakes their being. And no, it's not an effect of "the media". It's a very natural, human reaction to mass casualty.

I suppose I don't need to remind anyone of the suffering that would occur from a massive collapse of the economies of the US and/or West stemming from an inability to obtain secure, stable supplies of reasonably priced energy sources. For better or worse, this is the nature of things.

The US (and/or the West) are not responsible exclusively, or even mostly, for the situation in the mideast. The mideast has had its own difficulties with modernization since before the US was even remotely an influence, or indeed even existed. If you're content to point the finger squarely at the US or UK or the Iraq action for these attacks, be my guest. But that's a severely and seriously wrongheaded idea.

When it becomes politically expedient, the terrorists will make no distinction between London, Washington DC, Paris, or Madrid, regardless of any nations real or perceived support or non-support of, e.g., the Iraq action. And then what will you do? Be content to placate, and eventually essentially live subservient to terrorist whim and demands?

To destroy our enemy, we have to know our enemy. We have to understand that we are facing a radical fundamentalist movement with global reach and a very specific plan. They are not just out to kill us for the sake of killing us. They want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region s governments and pave the way for a new empire, an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area from Europe to Africa, from the Middle East to Central Asia.

The American people have a right to hear the answer to a fundamental question: How are we going to win this war? What is our strategy for eliminating the terrorists, discrediting their cause, and smashing their forces so that America can actually be safer?

The jihadist movement that hates us is gaining adherents around the

Re:Not just about Iraq

[ednopantz]

Except it was carried out by a transnational, non governmental group fighting without a fixed chain of command or in uniform, the standard for being a legitimate combatant under the Geneva Conventions.

These guys are more like pirates than legitmate combatants.

Re:More details

[Eric S. Smith]

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

Does your fear arise from an unmet expectation that the legislation would prevent terrorism, or from an anticipation of even worse measures now that a continuing vulnerability has been demonstrated?

Yes - 3 tubes and 1 bus

[ColourlessGreenIdeas]

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

You're an embarrassment to your country.

[James A. D. Joyce]

Stop being such a fucking pussy. I think it's funny, you think it's not. Fine, difference of opinion, whatever. But stop trying to pretend that you somehow have the moral high ground just because you think it's not funny. Oh, and learn the meaning of the word "racism", too.

Re:You're an embarrassment to your country.

[chris_mahan]

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

On another note:

The Preambule of the US Constitution states:

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

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

Notice the last word? America.

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

That doesn't make any sense.

[cgenman]

It would be great if we could turn around and attack 'the terrorists.' But who are the terrorists? In 9/11, most of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian, a government that is supposedly a friend of western nations. In France, the attackers were French. We could attempt to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Qatar, Yemen, Oman, Cyprus, and Lebanon, but we'd still be left with North Korea, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Russia, China, and Montana. And that wouldn't get to the root of the problem, which is that people hate the actions of our governments so much that they are willing to die to make a point. It wouldn't crush the malcontentment.

This is not WW2. Impoverishing them until they have nothing left to lose will not solve the problem. It didn't work in Israel, and it won't work for the west.

Get some perspective. You're still thousands of times more likely to die from normal homocide than you are from terrorism. You're thousands of times more likely to take your own life. Sure, we should and can do things to help prevent terrorism... stop supplying Israel with military aid, for example, and replace the silly symbolic airport screenings with something that has a chance of catching people. But ultimately there isn't a whole lot one can do to stop someone who is willing to die, once they've been driven to that point. Spend more time and money putting the west in a positive light around the world, and accept that sometimes bad things will happen.

I feel terrible for the people in London. I fear that the tragedy of this event will be followed by the tragedy of throwing away what is good about their society.

Re:7 bombs

[tigerd]

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

Re:Seven explosions

[Foxyloficus]

Violence begets violence, that's how terrorist movements generally get started, they don't appear out of a vacuum. Usually starts when some state or government abuses/oppresses/kills people. Some are directly effected (lose family members etc) and others are just made damn angry and filled with hatred for those associated with their oppressors. The more unstable of these are then ripe for recruitment into terrorist movements. Happens all the time, every empire or occupier has to deal with resistence/terrorism. And it's always the innocent who pay the price. British forces were originally sent to Northern Ireland to protect Irish Catholics from violent Unionist/Protestant groups (who thought their privileged status in Northern Ireland was threatened (it was). But they were then used to oppress and kill Irish Catholics (e.g. Bloody Sunday). This resulted in the Catholics turning against the British Army (which was originally welcomed) and spawned/invigorated terrorist groups like the Provisional IRA who then went on to commit various horrible atrocities against the British.

Re:Seven explosions

[rsax]

What I personally will never, ever get around is how someone can become so sick that they believe they are doing the Right Thing when participating in terror acts such as this.

I remember watching bombs exploding in Iraq and couldn't help but imagine mothers, fathers, sons and daughters thinking the same thing. Did the "Coalition of the Willing" pilots think they were "doing the right thing" or just following orders?

Lesson to be learned here: what we describe as terrorism (and this was terrorist activity) is justified in someone else's mind. Question is how do you deal with it? Do we continue bombing entire countries, thereby creating new terrorist recruiting grounds?

Re:Those who forget history...

[d34thm0nk3y]

The war we fought against Germany and Japan brought us 50 years of peace.

Yeah, 'cause WWII was the last war the US was involved in...

Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[iainl]

Having read the statement, I'd have to say there's a couple of problems.

1) "Secret Organisation al Qaeda in Europe"? That's a hastily made-up name if I ever saw one. It's against 'normal' Al Qaeda's modus operandi to go claiming responsibility so quickly, so why the new 'secret' version would be so forthcoming baffles me.

More seriously,

2) The actual statement talks about how Britain is trembling in fear 'to the North, South, East and West'. Well, having heard from people who have a bus in mangled bits RIGHT OUTSIDE THEIR FECKING WINDOW, they've failed in that one. Everyone is just pissed off they've got several miles to walk home, because there's no public transport.

We did terrorism for years, thanks to the IRA (funded by certain Americans, but we don't care as we can tell the difference between individuals and states, unlike Al "smash the Infidel by blowing up a bunch of random people" Qaeda). We got bored and went back to work before these little wankers even started.

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[william_w_bush]

england's ability to get over a terrorist attack without 50 celebrities doing dozens of tributes, having everyone buy tons of flags, and spending 4 years in group media-therapy makes me feel less proud to be an american...

jesus we have people in texas and alabama yelling about how badly we have to attack countries so they can finally "feel safe".

Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs

[swillden]

And unlike Tony "let's invade Afghanistan because someone we think hurt us might be hiding there" Blair and George "let's destroy Iraq because that Saddam guy is an asshole" Bush ?

Hold on a minute. Although the invasion of Iraq can certainly be questioned, attacking Afghanistan was a reasonable thing to do. We didn't think someone was hiding there, we absolutely knew they were, and the government of Afghanistan wasn't even trying to deny it. They were knowingly harboring and protecting a large and dangerous terrorist organization, and pretty much the whole world was in agreement that that was not right.

My only beef with the Afghanistan situation is that we're dropping the ball now. The US acquired a reputation during the Cold War for going into small countries, screwing them up badly, and then leaving. That sort of ham-handed meddling is exactly what makes a big chunk of the world mad at us. If we're going to fix that reputation we need to do right by Afghanistan. We need to leave it a much better place than we found it, and we're not doing that.

Re:Not just about Iraq

[Laser Lou]

So if someone in the Army is walking in a street, its ok to shoot him because he/she is a valid military target?

Seems you can't read, either.

[James A. D. Joyce]

The original comment which you took offence to was: "Maybe someone's mad they didn't get to host the Olympics?? Sheesh."

In what way does this make fun of the bombing victims? I don't see any thing along the lines of "haha, they got blown up". Here's my point: the original post was making fun of the people who did the bombing, not the victims. So in what way is it offensive to the victims of the bombings? But, hey, I don't think you actually bothered to, you know, read the fuckin' comment before you took offence. No, you just saw someone making a comment that wasn't "oh no this is a tragedy this is all blair's fault :( :(" and assumed they were making fun of the victims. You are a hypersensitive whiner.

Jeez...

[ShoobieRat]

You know, terrorists are pretty stupid people. No really, they have to be some of the dumbest folks I've ever known. Let's examine the facts, shall we?

1. The populace might be scared, but the powers-that-be aren't. Blowing up a subway, though tragic for the citizens, does nothing to effect the British military...which is now further in action due to an angry government. Good job.

2. What, in all domains of intelligence and common sense, would make a terrorist think that the British would yeild to this kind of action? For starters, the British are known for being some of the most stubborn people in Europe!

3. Scare tactics and violence don't effect the British. If suffering massive casualties and leveling their cities is the terrorist's plan for getting the British to listen, someone needs to point them to the nearest WWII documentery.

4. Blowing up a subway and a bus, will hardly do anything to make the British back down. If anything, it will only achieve making the British tighten their security, heighten their awareness, and step-up their efforts against the terrorists. ...I didn't know the terrorist objective was to make things harder for themselves. Idiots.

So, though I am not British nor am I in the UK, I say have a good day, put the kettle on, and get a broom. Hopefully one day the terrorist dorks will get a clue.

Re:Jeez...

[vidarh]

You completely fail to understand terorism. Why do you think the terrorists want the UK to yield? They gain much more if the UK does NOT yield, but reacts in yet another knee-jerk "lets go to war and kill some more terrorists" reaction Bush-style, or enacts yet more limitations on civil rights. THAT is the kind of reactions that they feed on to help recruit more people.

Their ultimate goal may be to get their opponents to yield, however the very fact that these are terrorist organisations, and not well established armies, mean that they are weak. You resort to terrorism when you're too few to lead guerilla warfare, and guerilla warfare when you are too weak for open conflict. You do it to spread fear and get your enemy to do stupid things, not to "win".

I'm not British, but I live in London and was on the train to Victoria this morning when I heard about the explosions. I did write both about my trip (which was fairly uneventful) and some thoughts on terrorism on my blog. Hopefully one day politicians will get a clue, and maybe the terorrist dorks will get a harder time recruiting more people.

Re:What will the EU do?

[d34thm0nk3y]

Um, wow. You actually believe that "people in Iraq", i.e., normal citizens of Iraq, have anything whatsoever to do with this?

True, but how many of their relatives can one kill before they get involved?

firsthand and eyewitness accounts

[whatever3003]

Just found a whole lot of eyewitness accounts here and a bbc journalist log here

Also, the recent flickr activity can be found here.

go read history

[diegocgteleline.es]

Oh please, then what triggered 9/11?

Do you really, really, believe that Bin Laden decided to spend several years planning the 9/11 attack, sacrifice several people, kill thousand of innocent people just because he wanted, without a reason? Do you really be that terrorist are the "bad guy" that decides to kill random people

Man, you have seen too many too many hollywood movies or listened (and believed) too many George Bush speeches. OF COURSE there's something which triggered the 9/11 attack. Terrorist don't act randomly and kill people without a reason, why would they? They're not stupid. I don't agree that killing people is the correct way to answer to what EEUU did, but terrorist think that it is, or they have a different vision from what EEUU with respect some military event

Go read some history. I hate how some EEUU citiziens think that EEUU is always "right" just because of their collaboration in the WWII. Yes, there was something that EEUU did that triggered the 9/11, go and learn some history, you'll find that the collaboration in the WWII doesn't neccesarily means that EEUU is always the "good guy"

Re:go read history

[LKM]

He had a reason, but it's irrational and insane. He's religious fundamentalist, and the motivations of such people are incomprehensible to reasonable, logical thinkers. He thinks Christians and Jews are abominations and must be exterminated. He hates the West, all of it, regardless of whether or not a given subsection of it is involved in Iraq or not. America is the "Big Satan" and Israel is the "Little Satan" and anybody who isn't actively trying to destroy both nations is the enemy of Islam.

That would be a very convenient explanation. It's quite unfortunate that it has no base in reality whatsoever. Bin Laden is no stupid religious fundamentalist who wants to kill all infidels. That's the rhetorics he often uses in his videos to get his followers rallied up, but his actual goal is to get the western countries out of arabic countries. This whole thing started with the presence of U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden wanted them out in order to increase his own influence, and to that effect, he started his campaign against the Americans.

This is about power, not religion.

Re:go read history

[squiggleslash]

No. Bullshit. They tried to knock over the World Trade Center in 1993 when Bill Clinton was president. Why? They bombed the USS Cole during Clinton's term. Why? They slaughtered hundreds at our embassies in Africa. Why? President Clinton mostly ignored them, why did they still want to get us? All because of Gulf 1? If there's no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, why in the world would these terrorists be so upset about Iraq?

And, I ask you, why has there not been a single American civilian death on our own soil since 9/11? How hard would it be for just ONE al Qaeda sympathizer or sleeper cell operative to build a bomb and blow up the food court at a shopping ball? Or a zoo? An amusement park? A sporting event? A crowded bus? Why? NOT ONE. Not one in 4 years. There's almost 300,000,000 people in our borders, and NOT ONE OF THEM has done this. Why?

You appear to be judging Clinton and Bush by different yardsticks.

After Bin Laden's initial WTC attack in 1993, there were no American civilian deaths (from Ladenite terrorism) on American soil either until 9/11, which happened eight years later under a different President. So far as I'm aware, there was only one high profile attempt in the years that followed, an attempt on New Year's Eve, 1999, to blow up LAX, which was foiled by the intelligence in place at the time. We don't know what attempts have been made since 9/11, but we know that the government periodically puts the country on high alert.

Meanwhile, so far as I can see, terrorism continues to be used against the US outside of the country, most of the focus being in Iraq, for obvious reasons. Americans, civilians, government officials, and troops, are still being targetted.

But then the suggestion Clinton ignored terrorists is also false. Clinton made a number of high profile attempts to deal with Osama Bin Laden, much of which was ignored at the time because of the impeachment proceedings. The controversy over his bombing of a factory that turned out to manufacture children's asprin is one example. Clearly though, the factor that ensured there were no terrorist attacks on American soil from 1993 to 2001 had much to do with the way the government of the time managed the threat.

This isn't really a day to make political points. Your posting, at least these two paragraphs, came across as a bizarre example of Clinton bashing that were both unnecessary and highly misleading.

Re:go read history

[MagikSlinger]

Nice hystrionics full of specious reasoning.

He thinks Christians and Jews are abominations and must be exterminated. He hates the West, all of it, regardless of whether or not a given subsection of it is involved in Iraq or not. America is the "Big Satan" and Israel is the "Little Satan" and anybody who isn't actively trying to destroy both nations is the enemy of Islam.

He doesn't think of Christians and Jews as abominations. He just considers us unbelievers who must be kept out of Arab affairs and especially out of Islamic holy sites. E.g., the American forces stationed near Mecca. He and his followers are sick of having their plans for an ideal, "just" Islamic society being thwarted by American funded & trained tyrants. Like the Saudi royal family. It's that simple. He's quite OK with letting us live our corrupt, infedlic lives; he just wants us to do it over here, not there.

Now his vision of an ideal, "just" Islamic society is abhorrent to most everyday Arabs, and that's where his campaign of terror comes in. Essentially, he provokes the West to occupy and brutalise an Arab country. Al Queda shows it is "fighting the infdels over there to prevent them from coming over here". They become popular. They can take control. Nightmare for everyone who lives under a pure Islamist state.

No. Bullshit. They tried to knock over the World Trade Center in 1993 when Bill Clinton was president. Why? They bombed the USS Cole during Clinton's term. Why? They slaughtered hundreds at our embassies in Africa. Why? President Clinton mostly ignored them, why did they still want to get us? All because of Gulf 1? If there's no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, why in the world would these terrorists be so upset about Iraq?

Your life would be easier if you stopped watching Fox news. Al Queda's stated aims have always been "the expulsion of American Armed forces from the sacred sites of Islam [Saudi Arabia]". That's why OBL got followers. That's why they came after the U.S. It's a stupid, irrational reason, but that's religion for you.

And, I ask you, why has there not been a single American civilian death on our own soil since 9/11?

Because Al Queda likes to think big. Simple suicide bombings in a food court are too small potatoes. Also, their main goal was to get America to invade, occupy and brutalise an Arab nation. Mission Accomplished.

I actually don't know the answer, but I have a few ideas. (1) They're busy dying in Iraq (2) Our new security policies after 9/11 have been successful on some level (3) They get to America and begin to live here and experience our country while planning their assault, and after experiencing freedom, stability, and economic success, their urge to blow themselves to smithereens or get arrested while trying to both other people up abates and eventually vanishes. Why destroy this? It's paradise compared to the disease-infested cess pools they came from.

Al Queda is not a monolithic group. It's the umbrella name given by the West to the world-wide Islamist insurgency that views OBL as their role-model. Most of the "Al Queda" fighters in Iraq are locals and from neighbouring states. The cells are very likely still alive and kicking. Just waiting for their next order.

As for "cess-pools", that would be true if they were poor. Almost all of the known Al Queda operatives captures or killed came from very nice, middle-class Arab families. Fairly well educated and had a good future if they wanted it. I saw an interview with the family of one of the 9/11 hijackers and their pain and grief were heart-breaking. They hate Islamists and terrorism. They're quite moderate Islamics and have nice jobs. They don't understand why their son suddenly turned their back on them when he went to Europe to go to University. He almost completely stopped

Re:go read history

[Listen Up]

Honestly, American soldiers who are Christian kill because [i]they[/i] believe [i]they[/i] are right and [i]their[/i] version of God is on [i]their[/i] side. So, does the method of killing make any difference between the Christians and the Islamics? No, it doesn't. Each person believes they are righteous for killing for the exact same reasons. Each person is equally wrong.

It is amazing that people have no historical education about the Middle East and the US involvement in world affairs. To make points short for this post, the US [i]is[/i] the sole reason why the US is hated by many parts of the world. The UK [i]is[/i] the sole reason why the Middle East is divided up as it currently is by religious and ethnic based borders. Even my brother's Army Times newpaper and Soldiers publication point out quite clearly that 'radical' Islamics, Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and others are not anti-Democracy or anything of the sort. And these are military publications for military personnel. The 'terrorist' groups are simply attacking the US and the UK because of the US and UK's military and economic support of Israel and other political and military involvement in the Middle East (i.e. US support of Iraq in the 1970's and early 1980's and the true political history and US involvement in Iran). The attacks on the World Trade Center buildings during both US presidential administrations, the attack on the USS Cole, and Pentagon were nothing more than symbolic. The US has not had one single attack on its soil since then because there is no general terrorism threat to the US and there never was one. If there was a genuine terrorism threat, it would not take any effort to poison water supplies, poison food supplies, bomb subways, blow up dams, blow up oil pipelines, etc. None of these things happened before 9/11 and none of these things have happened since 9/11. Again, there is not a general terrorism threat to the US and there never was one. The reasons why the current US presidential administration is using the 9/11 terrorist attacks to gain more control over the US population through fear and thoughtlessness is a conversation for an entirely new thread.

Also, the US is not the world's largest democracy. India is the world's largest democracy. And although India and Pakistan have historically been back-and-forth over Kashmir, why haven't Al Qaeda attacked India like they did the US? Because Al Qaeda is not anti-democracy, but anti-US and anti-UK foreign policy.

I could easily go on, but the number of ignorant and uneducated posts on Slashdot is incredible. So many people simply do not get it. There are posts with everything from calling Al Qaeda crazy and insane to banning Islam in the US. These are all uneducated, knee-jerk reactions which are no different than those views held by the very people you are speaking out against. When people start to become as bad as the people they are trying to change, then nobody wins.

And not to be one-sided, but the Middle East has more than its share of problems all on its own. If the Islamic people learned to stop fighting everyone including themselves, banded together and worked as a single homogeneous union, something akin to the EU the world would be a much different and possibly better place.

On a side note, what will happen when China surpasses the US as the world's largest Superpower? Do you believe Al Qaeda will start attacking China? Unless China gets involved in the Middle East and Israel, then the answer is no. But, if history is any lesson, the US will try to start trouble with China instead and then claim innocence when the shit hits the fan. It is already happening with Taiwan. US citizens will not research it for themselves and the cycle will continue. The next century will be an interesting one indeed.

Four bombs, not seven

[iconara]

There has been four bombings in London this morning, not seven or six as previously reported. The confusion seems to be caused by one of the bombs affecting both Liverpool Street Station, Moorgate and Aldgate East stations, which are close and all were used as exits by survivors and injured. All are in east central London.

The other underground bombs were at Tavistock Square (near King's Cross Station in north central London) and Edgware Road (northwest central London).

The bombed bus was near Russel Square in central London, although different media report different locations, all in the vicinity of Russel Square. Russel Square is also close to Tavistock Square.

map of locations

The Ghandi responce

[TamMan2000]

If fighting terrorism triggers terrorism, how do you stop it?
Give in?
That didn't work well with bullies in grade school, and it won't work with bullies now.

(Although I have to admit that all the free publicity and credibility that we give terrorism by watching every little news item about terrorist strikes, and discussing them for hours is a VERY EFFECTIVE way to encourage terrorism.)

When they knocked down the towers, the best thing we could have done, is built taller towers in their place.

If we can demostrate that their tactics do not successfully inspire fear (that is the point of a terrorist attack), we win. Reactionary wars, and warning systems, and the trumpeting of meassages of fear from the media, and the leadership only help the terrorists acheive their goals.

To use the bully analogy, there are options besides caving and fighting. After the bully punches you. You stand back up, stick out you chest, and look at him, waiting for him to hit you again (they seldom do). Bullies don't know how to deal with this responce. They actually prefer you swing at them...

Re:Then what?

[Anonymous Coward]

If fighting terrorism triggers terrorism, how do you stop it?

Well, the best way is to remove its causes. People generally become terrorists because they are upset about something. Pretty much anything done involving Israel is a cause of tension. The US's general arrogance in foreign policy has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and some of them are trying to get back at us. Now, you can't make everybody happy, so this only goes so far. In some places (Israel/Palestine), there is no good answer, so anything we do is automatically bad. But, we could do far more to avoid pissing off everyone we come in contact with.

As someone said, you don't fight terrorists with a conventional army. You don't have to take over a country and deal with millions of people who don't want you there just to kill a few hundred terrorists. You move in quietly, kill them, and leave. Or go with our usual cruise missile attacks.

The reality is, though, that terrorism isn't going away. Even President Bush admitted that (before changing his mind). We can't keep them out of the country, either, it's just too big. Our attempts to prevent terrorism simply take little freedoms from 280 million people to try to find the 10 that are working on the next 9/11.

For those who say that it must be working, because there hasn't been a repeat of 9/11, keep dreaming. Before 9/11 we had Oklahoma City (done by a white American, who we aren't worrying about right now). Before that was the World Trade Center bombing. That's only 2 outside attacks on US soil in 20 years. If we can prevent a repeat for the next 15 years, then you have something to back up that claim.

Whether Iraq and Afganistan are 'good wars' or not is an entirely different question. There are reasons to go there, and reasons not to. Fighting terrorists is pretty low on the list, though, because it's just not the most effective way to do it. Long term it might help, because if the people of those countries become free and happy they won't be as pissed off at us anymore (see par. 1). The press (and the government press people) aren't helping, because we only hear about the horrors of war, we never hear about the people of those countries being better off for our invasion.

I'm going to disagree

[Degrees]

They do hate us for meddling.

Take the Taliban for example. In the 1980's, Henry Kissinger advised Ronald Reagan that through Afghanistan, the USA could hand the USSR "Its Viet Nam".

Thus, the "Afghan Freedom Fighters" were born.

So, at our encouragement (and provision), they bled, and died, and won their freedom. Much like China backed the Viet Cong, we backed the Afghans.

And later presidents (and congress) changed their mind. We abandoned them.

The Taliban then started pounding the drum "They played us for suckers. Are you widows and orphans (and neighbors of widows and orphans) listening?"

The cause of all this trouble was not religious bigotry - it was meddling.

Well, it was meddling, and the lack of foresight to understand that presidents change, and there are no guarantees that the new president will maintain the policies of the old president. Any country or people that cut a deal with the USA needs to understand that. Frankly, our own State Department needs to warn the principals of this, at the beginning of any scheme.

To write off their anger as incoherent religious dogma is to delude yourself. We meddled. Then we walked away, without much, if any, thanks. Those actions had consequences.

The latest and a Londoner's view

[twem2]

Total deaths so far 43, from 4 bombs.
3 were on underground trains and 1 on a bus.

As a Londoner I've been expecting this, its inevitable, you can never have a free society and prevent every terrorist. The thing we must do is, like we did in the 70s under the threat from the IRA, is continue our lives and not let the terrorists dictate our actions and lives.
We must not let our government use this as an excuse to impose more authoritarian laws and continue to spread the message of freedom and liberty, in its social, personal, political and economic guises.
We must not give in to the terrorists and become like them. They want us to attack innocent people who just happen to be arabic or muslim, it will help swell their ranks.

Re:The latest and a Londoner's view

[horza]

The attack won't change anything. It will leave some families scarred by the loss of a loved one, and an awful lot of really pissed off commuters. We've been through plenty of terrorist attacks already and I'm sure our able emergency services have done their best to treat the injured as quickly and effectively as possible.

A free society is something you have to fight for. Always. Just because we've had an easy ride the past few years doesn't mean the battle is over. Just as this attack isn't the start of anything. It's one more lunatic group who's cult philosophy involves murdering innocent people.

I agree that I don't want these nuts to change my way of life, and I don't want the government to introduce any knee-jerk authoritarian legislation. Or ID cards. I also don't want to hear any talk of 'terrorists'. I want those responsible identified. And I want them punished.

Phillip.

Re:Then what?

[Thomas Miconi]

If fighting terrorism triggers terrorism, how do you stop it?

Fighting terrorism does not encourage terrorism.

Invading an unrelated country and calling it 'war against terror' (cos' you know, all those dirty Arabs who don't like the US, it's, like, all the same, no ?) certainly does.

The solution is to fight terrorists, not people who have nothing to do with them, so as not to turn them into terrorists.

Comprende ?

Thomas-

Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It!

[Concern]

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

Are you familiar with what we did in Iran?

Our awful, and bloodthirsty, actions in Iran destabilized a popular, realtively moderate (if nationalist) democracy and installed a pro-western puppet, who clung to power with a secret police described by Amnesty International as the "world's worst" for their unheard-of level of barbarity and disrespect for human rights.

Result: in 1979, our CIA-backed puppet was overthrown, and a Radical, Fascist Islamic Theocracy gained power.

This is what they call a "backlash."

So let's read what you said again:

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

Let's all reflect on this a moment.

OK, ready to continue?

You may be right that the Middle East has its own problems, and your implied ruthless reasoning about the world's necesity for oil will no doubt resonate, but what you are dreadfully wrong about is that the American/Brittish petroleum-industry campaign of dirty tricks and military intervention works. It does not work.

Iraq will be worse than Iran; I imagine even you are realizing it now.

If you are a Ruthless American (and I imagine this country was built partly on their shoulders), you can say the problem isn't that we tried to exert influence, only that we failed. But, in light of recent history, why don't we leave a little room for alternative interpretations.

You actually believe that "people in Iraq", i.e., normal citizens of Iraq, have anything whatsoever to do with this?

You are trying to minimize the undeniable fact that many Iraqis, not just Iranians and Syrians and Saudis, are participating in guerrilla war against the U.S. military. Many of them out of nationalism, or because of the Sunni-Shiite shuffle, or many just because a relative became American collateral damage.

Maybe even just because their wife and children were dragged outside at 2am and frisked and interrogated by 19 year olds from Kentucky on a tip provided by somebody getting paid to provide tips.

No matter how you justify invading them, being untruthful with yourself and others about the conduct and consequences of the war is dangerous, to your country, to its armed forces (which bear the brunt of the policies we advocate), and to yourself, ultimately, if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time for the next bit of blowback against westerners.

Living in a safer world starts every morning with you waking up and refusing to accept a little more rhetoric, and dealing a little bit more seriously with the truth instead. You urgently need the truth. And you deserve it.

So you're saying that full scale ethnic and religious genocide is the only way to modernize and democratize the mideast, to enable a free flow of information and a free exchange of ideas, and to empower the peoples of said nations to control their own personal and collective destinies in an environment that nurtures ideals of freedom?

If we started with non-oil producers in greater need, people actually would believe that was what we were doing.

You even mix the rhetoric of spreading democracy and going after oil in the same post.

Don't you see it? Or must we still talk about it abstractly, only as "what Iraqis believe..."

Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[Catbeller]

Terrorism is a description of a methodology, as seen by the attacked.

"Al Qaeda" as a term did not exist prior to a certain (sorry) trial where a criminal termed his movement in that fashion, spinning a tale of massive worldwide organization. He got a reduced sentence, I believe.

His tale was used exclusively by Bush and the neocons after 9-11 (without crediting the source). Point is, there was no "Al Qaeda" in name or organization prior to 9-11 -- but now there is. Any radical fundie who wants to blow something up now will call himself a member of "Al Qaeda". It's a like a decentralized franchise operation.

There were quite a few operatives in this operation. It took coordination, and that takes numbers. BUT. Not that many. This could have been done by four people, total, on the low side. Grandly expanding four psychos into a worldwide "terrorist" army with which we are at war will be Blair's and Bush's instant exploitation.

This is a CRIMINAL act, not an act of war. Timothy McVeigh was not a member of the militant terrorist Michigan Militia, and that group was not at war with the U.S. What bin Laden is, is a nutjob, and he has a small cadre of nutjobs that are with him. He can't declare war. He's not a country. He's a criminal. Send police after him. SAME with these nutjobs.

OTOH, could have been Iraqis bringing the war back to Britain.

Iraq has nothing to do with the f*^&ing "war" on "terror". The people there are fighting us because we invaded and took over their country, incidentally stealing their oil and establishing a permanent military garrison. It's called an insurgency, and insurgents use guerilla tactics. The invader calls it "terrorism". Nut jobs are indeed coming in from around the world, but Bush was falsly invoking them as the cause of the insurgency from day one of the occupation; they are not the primary movers. Iraq did not harbor jihadists. He lied. Iraq NOW has pissed off citizenry that will eventually bring the war to the US and Britain. But we MADE them. They did not exist before.

What makes my fury boil is the way Bush and Blair will idiotically and unashamedly link the criminal act in London to the need to continue the "War on Terror" in Iraq, making the ears of informed people bleed from the sheer pain of listening to the exploitation of death. Iraq may very well have spawned the attacks on London, but IF the attack came from Iraq, then B&B brought it on. Bush actually said, "Bring it on!" when asked about terrorist attacks engendered by his invasion of Iraq.

Well, they've brought it on, either the nutjobs or pissed-off Iraqis. What now, you fake cowboy? Gonna keep killing "terrorists" until the world runs out of them, as you've implied?

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[Tom]

Bush actually said, "Bring it on!"

Great point. From that statement onwards, he should lose all rights to complain if they comply.

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[Tom]

Iraq NOW has pissed off citizenry that will eventually bring the war to the US and Britain. But we MADE them.

Here's a quote from Blair today:
"Our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism upon the world,"
(source: wikipedia)

Someone in Iraq could say pretty much the same thing to justify the continued resistance against US forces.

Funny how everyone in this world thinks he's with the good guys and the others are the bad boys.

Re:Before I read anything, I'd like to say

[Coryoth]

Any radical fundie who wants to blow something up now will call himself a member of "Al Qaeda". It's a like a decentralized franchise operation.

Exactly. There just isn't any real evidence of some globe spanning terror network, or army of al Qaeda out to get us. Everything we know about al Qaeda shows them to be a kind of venture capital enterprise for terrorists. Bin Laden didn't come up with the idea, or plan, or mastermind or orchestrate the WTC attack. He provided money to some people because they explained their idea and I guess he thought it sounded good.

The statement we have for the London attack is worth reading carefully. For a moment pretend that al Qaeda is just a small operation that had a lot of cash to fund whatever terrorist came to them looking for money, and that said small organisation is (post Afghanistant) essentially unable to do anything. The name of the group claiming responsibility "The Secret Organization Group of Al-Qa'ida of Jihad Organization in Europe", and their statements to the effect of "We worked really hard to pull this off" start to come off like a small group of nutjob wannabes who have heard the western media portrayal of al Qaeda, thought it sounded like a good idea, tried to "join up" but couldn't actually find anything to join up with, so created their own little secret club and are trying to "get attention" from this massive globe spanning terror network they've heard about and prove that they're capable by blowing things up.

Jedidiah.

Well...

[Grendel Drago]

The Americans didn't travel all the way across the Atlantic Ocean to kill Brit civilians, in an attempt to encourage them to end the unjust colonial occupation or whatnot. Small difference, there.

If I recall, Ben Franklin went across the pond to mack it with the French ladies and drum up support there, but that was about it.

--grendel drago

Re:100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq

[JawzX]

I don't think the original poster is offtopic at all. If 100,000 innocent people in your country were killed in "collateral" damage wouldn't you be pissed? This is not to say I'm blaming Iraq, as a matter of fact they are probably the LEAST equiped to mount and organize an attack of this sort out of al the Islamic states, wether having ties to Al Q'aeda or not. (not it seems, that is untill the invasion gave them reason to have ties...) Iraq, wether ruled by a heinous dictator or not, was relatively MODERATE by Islamic fundamentalist (Al Q'aeda) standards, and as a result the general populous of Iraq was NOT largely in support of the actions of terrorists. The feelings of hoplessnes, loss and anger raised since the invasion has INCREASED popular support for terror activities in Iraq since 9/11. Although the place is in such a shambles and dealing with internal problems and mounting an "insurgency" (wouldn't you?) I doubt they had much, if anything to do with this event, but if you think the invasion of Iraq has helped quell terrorism you aren't thinking like an angry, irrational human being who's seen thier house, place of work, place of worship, etc blown up and or defaced and derided by an invading force of foreigners who can't be bothered to even learn enough of your language to tell you to "get down with your hands on your head" while arresting a memeber of your family for vauge and undefined reasons.

I'm not saying terrorism is a good response (it's not), I'm not saying it's an effective political tool (it just makes more people angry and hurt and irrational), but I'm saying people under stress do irrational things and the US and "The West" have done very little to address the (very) personal stress experienced by people in poor and/or politicaly opressive countries. Invading and dismantaling a country is NOT stress reducing. If there are drivers on the road in the USA who feel the need to rear-end people who cut them off in fits of irrational road-rage, what do you think thier unstable stress-monky counterparts are likey to do when they see hundreds of thousands of people like them (or they themselves) killed and left homeless (wether for thier long term good or not).

War of any kind breeds hate and irrational behavior. Others have mentioned the "two ways to win the win the war on terror" Kill 'em all, or get out. I think there needs to be a third idea mentioned, take some of the crazy wealth of our "Western" nations, spread it arround, with a good heaping portion of good-will and non-military aid and watch people suddenly get content and rational. Watch dictatorships and radical fundamentalism dry up as people find fewer and fewer things to be angry about. Watch them fix little problems, or things that have been on the back burner (like AIDS, Global Warming, and the Impending Energy Crisis) instead of devoting thier time to being mad the person next-door.

Never underestimate the power of a decent standard of living.

Terrorists, separatists and names.

[northcat]

Yeah, the people who did this are "terrorists", but the people who did something similar two days ago here in India are "militants" according to BBC and CNN, and the ones who kill innocent civilians every day in Kashmir are merely "separatists". And let's not even get started on what's happening in Russia. You people seem incredibly hypocritical when you talk about "deaths of innocent people".

Re:Not just about Iraq

[Anonymous Meoward]

So if someone in the Army is walking in a street, its ok to shoot him because he/she is a valid military target?

Of course.

The kicker is "valid military target". Army personnel "walking in a street" of a country that they are currently invading, for example, and who have not surrendered in any way, are perfectly legitimate targets for the defenders. No body of international law would convict the shooter of war crimes in that case.

Sorry if that's not the answer you wanted, but war has a tendency to suck that way.

two things...

[YesIAmAScript]

There were two major factors that triggered 9/11.

First, and the biggest, was our backing of Islamic warriors against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. We sent the CIA to teach them (including Bin Laden) to fight to outst the Soviet Union. Kind of ironic that we boycott and Olympics and train people who would ultimately kill our own over the USSR invading and occupying a country we would later invade and occupy also.

Once the USSR left, we left the Mujahadeen twisting in the wind, warriors willing and able to fight for their beliefs with no one to fight against. Bin Laden then turned on the US, angry about this.

More importantly, the same warriors declared war on the US for invading parts of the Middle East (repelling the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait) and occupying the holiest land of all, the Arabian Penninsula.

These were the biggest factors that led to the attacks on the World Trade Center (both times). But despite all of our foolishness here, the blame lies with Bin Laden/Al Qaeda. Ultimately, they ordered the attacks.

Still, if we hadn't decided to meddle in the Middle East (all the way back to replacing the Shah in Iran) we probably wouldn't have become the target of choice, and 9/11 wouldn't have occured. We really should spend more effort understanding people and less attacking them. Everyone loves to see a bully toppled, so the more we invade countries, the easier it is for our enemies to recruit members.

Re:More details

[learn fast]

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

You are simply flatly wrong

Now that we have Google there is no need to invent demonstrably false facts like this. My search terms were "number of terrorist attacks", and I tried several permutations and got approximately the same results, so it wasn't a function of the particular terms I used. Try it sometime. Perhaps you were originally misinformed by something having to do with this.

Re:More details

[IngramJames]

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

Terrorist organisations that have increased their membership as a result of governments "trying to take them out":
- the Provisional IRA
- ETA
- PLO and PFLP
- almost all Resistance organisations in Europe during the Second World War - but especially the French
- ANC
- lot and lots and lots of others
- any organisation I would join if some other country was bombing civillian men, women and children round my way on the grounds that they may hit a terrorist as well

Terrorist organisations which have been defeated as a result of governments trying to "take them out"
- Dutch resistance during the Second World War (temporarily - and due to inflitration by native Dutch speakers and code intercepts rather than shooting and bombing).

er... that's all I can think of.

Sure. Let's go with the proven tactic.

Re:More details

[jpietrzak]

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

I've seen lots of people around with this notion. So the question is, how and why did these people become brainwashed?

Let's say that you personally had the power to go out and put a bullet in the brain of every single person who is currently brainwashed. Consider that, perhaps, these people are becoming "brainwashed" because they've grown up in an environment where they've lost friends and family members; that maybe other social groups have dominated their group by brutal force. It is quite possible that, given the hundreds (or thousands?) of people that you'll be offing, there'll be hundreds or thousands of their friends and family members who will then be ripe for new brainwashing...

There is no doubt, the people who perpetrated this attack are sick bastards. They do deserve death. But if we simply go out and start killing people in kind, don't we just become terrorists ourselves?

--John

The proper way to fight terrorism

[ThinWhiteDuke]

Here

If you're (still) in a frog-bashing mood, don't bother to click the above link. It says good things about the French.

What I gather from this article is that you don't fight terror by invading unrelated countries. You fight terror through boring, tedious and frustrating police and intelligence work. You share resources and information with your allies, you try to outwit the terrorists.

I think it was John Kerry who got bashed for saying something along the lines "I don't think we can ever win the war on terror, but we can reduce it to a mere nuisance". He was spot on. And the guys this article mention are doing just that. Their cost is several orders of magnitude below the cost of the Iraq war and I think they are far more effective.

Invading Iraq was a huge mistake as far as terrorism is concerned. Proponents of this war tend to present a false dichotomy. It was invading Iraq or doing nothing. This is wrong. The choice was between invading Iraq and setting up more of this kind of counter-terrorist cells.

Not Even Close

[nrlightfoot]

Last year the number of terrorist attacks worldwide more than tripled, from a record of 175 in 2003 to 655 in 2004. That certainly doesn't sound like a successful "war on terror" to me.

The simple fact is that terrorists attack the US because they are seriously pissed off at our foreign policies, and if we would just quit trying to be the world's self appointed police force, terrorist attacks would decline dramatically.

Re:Respond with more force

[alcmaeon]

Bomb THEM? THEM who?

If you knew who THEM was, you could arrest THEM ahead of time.

Re:What will the EU do?

[MynockGuano]

I'm going to reply to this one, since it was the only one of the three so far to make some rational sense.

I honestly don't believe it's my personal fault that there are countries that haven't kept pace with the prosperity of the Western world. And while I also don't think that I am in any way immediately responsible for the birth of said prosperity, what I am responsible for is doing what I can to allow it to continue. If I were in charge, I would be more than willing to help other countries prosper, as well, but there are a few things that you'll need to keep in mind about the nature of this help:

1) It will be on my terms. If I cannot afford to continue aid, or if such aid impairs with my own well-being, then I shall not be obligated to provide you with it.

2) It will require your help. I cannot hold your hand forever; such aid is given with the expectation that it will be used towards an ultimate goal of self-sufficiency.

3) You shall not squander what I give, nor complain when what I give is not what you expect. You do not need anyone's approval to work problems out on your own. If you don't like what I have given you, then you can find your own solutions. My solutions are inevitably influenced by my world-view. Naturally, this is not necessarily your world-view. If you want solutions other than the ones that I can most readily provide, then you will find them yourself.

This is very simple, common sense. I'm not as well-versed on foreign affairs as all of the political experts here, but I imagine it follows roughly along the guidelines listed above. The impression I am getting from the posts above mine is that there are some who believe that the people of the Western world are at fault for the shortcomings of the less-prosperous. I have done nothing to actively squander the growth and development of any nation, and I'm certain that this holds for the vast majority of people in the world.

The people of these nations living on 15 cents a day are no more or less human than the rest of us. They are no more or less capable of forming solutions to their problems, as others have done throughout history. In fact, the Southwest Asian/Northern African region has historically been a hub for intellectual pursuit. There is no reason to believe that they are incapable of surviving without the support of the Western world, and by insisting that they are, you do them a disservice greater than that caused by any bomb, tariff, or ideology.

Message from a Muslim in London

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do not link this dreadful attack with Islam or it's followers. We are as shocked by this attack as much as everyone, and whilst there will no doubt be some who take pleasure in it, most of us are horrified by it. At every location there will, almost certainly, have been Muslims who are injured or worse, Edware Road and Aldgate East have large Muslim populations for a start. We, like everyone else, have been trying to contact friends and family, Muslim and non-Muslim who may have been affected.

If this is the work of misguided Muslims, then they have committed a major sin by the killing of innocent people, and have sullied our beutiful religion.

Other than those directly affected by these attacks, it will be the Muslims in the UK who suffer the most. And once again, we will need to prove that our religion is not one of barbarity and bloodshed, as it is often portrayed. No doubt there will be innocent Muslims who are verbally or physically assaulted because of this event. So we are not pleased by this event one bit, and we condemn those who planned and carried this out.

Please know that for every so called Muslim scholar who may appear on t.v. proclaiming there support for this attack as valid retribution for the slaughter of Muslims, there will be many many more who are not given the opportunity to condemn this. If you really want to see the Muslim reaction to this, then visit sites such as http://www.deenport.com/ or http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/.

We pray for all those affected by this terrible event, and we hope that all those responsible for it are brought to justice.

start learning history...

[YesIAmAScript]

The US was involved in the very incident that began the modern Islamic revolution. That was when an Iranian revolution removed the Shah from power. We (the US) decided we liked the Shah's mode of operation, so we helped reinstall him in power in Iran. Islamic fundamentalists banded together and removed him from power again and took US hostages in the American Embassy in Tehran. Perhaps you remember that? They formed an Islamist republic after the removal the 2nd time of the Shah. Thus start the transition in the Middle East from dictatorial/monarchist countries to Islamic republics (not really republics at all, but run by the Mullahs).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution

This success and embarassment of the US emboldened the radical Islamists and gave leaders in the Middle East who wanted to organize a fighting force a great way to make one, by claiming that this was a battle for Islam. A tactic we (the US) exploited well in backing Bin Laden against the USSR in Afghanistan.

Our involvement in Iran also led us to believe we had to have someone to support in the Middle East against these radicals. This led to a period of nearly unconditional backing of Israel. Israel knew we were unlikely to drop support of them and thus engaged in many nasty actions against Arab people in neighboring countries. They even attacked one of our own ships. Our backing of Israel during this brutal period didn't help us in the eyes of Bin Laden and other radical Islamists with an axe to grind.

Now all of this isn't to say that if our opponent(s) were more reasonable that things wouldn't have gone differently. But we had plenty of warning in 1978 that there were people in the Middle East using Islam as a cause who would turn their fighters against us if we only gave them a reason to do so.

Apparently we didn't think it'd be a problem. We underestimated the trouble these people could cause of us. This continues under Bush as strong as ever. And that's how we got into two wars at once without the manpower to finish either of them correctly.

Re:Then what?

[HuguesT]

You fight terrorists with the Law.

You treat terrorists as criminals. You hunt masterminds with Interpol. You capture them, and give them a fair trial.

It worked with Libia and the Lockerbie disaster, which before 9/11 was the worst act of terrorism perpetrated on americans (nearly 200 died).

Note that Libia and colonel Khadafi have renounced terrorism and appear to be genuine so far.

It worked very well with IRA terrorism in Ireland and England. Note that the IRA hasn't been detonating bombs in a long time.

You have to be prepared to be patient and persistent. You don't have to bomb or invade anybody.

The truth is somewhere in-between

[DG]

Like most things, the truth lies between these two extremes "We did something bad to deserve it" and "terrorists are insane and irrational".

Your typical terrorist does indeed usually have a rational goal in mind. These are not people who blow up stuff just for fun, or because a little voice in their head told them to do it - there is usually a very real and logical justification behind their actions.

Where things start to diverge from the typical American worldview is that things that do not matter the slightest bit to an American might matter a great deal to a terrorist - and vice versa. Plus there is often the same confusion of motive between terrorist and Americans as there is between Americans and terrorists. And finally, terrorists are by definition willing to do things considered unconciencable in the American (really, Western) value system.

For example, Western society makes a distinction between "church" and "state", and further makes a distinction between "combatant" and "civillian". Other societies may not, and in particular, the branches of Islamic fundamentalism that are causing all the problems these days do not.

The fundamental problem here is a clash of cultures with very, very different value systems. There's a lot of perfectly normal Western behaviour that to an Islamic fundamentallist of the correct flavour, would be the Western equivelant of painting pentagrams on chruch altars. Certain elements see Western civilization (and American civilization in particular) as being every bit as evil as Nazism, and they are willing to go to great lengths to attack it.

Cast in the right light, the French Resistance during WW2 was a "terrorist" organization. So too was the American Revolutionary Army, with George Washington subbing in for Bin Laden.

That might seem over the top, a sort of psudeo-Godwinesque claim, but there is an essential core truth in there. The French Resistance and George Washington tended to limit their hostillities to military targets, which is seen as "honourable" in Western circles, but that's the Western distinction between soldier and civillian talking. If your culture makes no such distinction, then attacking civillians is not de facto an unconciencable act.

So it is very much a mistake to make the assumption that terrorists are simply irrational killers and dismiss them as such. It behooves Western civilization to understand exactly what the beef the terrorists have, and to examine those complaints in the cold, hard, RATIONAL light of the truth.

Because part of that truth is that the West - and again, America in particular - is not entirely innocent. When people call you the "great Satan" there is usually a reason or two behind it.

In particular, the Israelis have been treating their Arab Palestinean population very, very badly for quite some time now - and the staunchest supporter of Isreal is the USA. That does nothing to endear the US to Arabs in the area - and when the US invades Iraq under false pretences (bringing more Arabs under American colonial rule) that starts to look a lot (from an Arab perspective) like a cultural war being waged on Islam.

The invasion of Iraq has to have been the biggest strategic blunder since the invasion of Poland (or perhaps the invasion of Russia, I'll accept either) by Hitler. How to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.... If the US had concentrated on eliminating the terrorist cells in Afganistan, and then had Marshall Planned Afganistan, the world would be a MUCH safer place right now.

Now as far as the "no single death on American soil" argument goes... Al Quaida has NEVER had much of a presence on American soil. Prior to 9/11, the holder of the most successful terrorist attack in the US was Tim McVey and co, a group of AMERICANS upset at their own government. Al Quaida had made a couple of attempts at the WTC, but they had been dismal, almost laughable, failures. Al Quaida simply wasn't in the business of setting off random bombs at sporting events and shop

Re:The truth is somewhere in-between

[nicklott]

I agree with you almost 100%, however I take issue with your statement that Islamic cultures do not discriminate between civilian and military targets. I do not claim to be an expert in arab culture, but these people are as intelligent as anyone else in the world; the difference between a bunch a language students on a bus and the field headquarters of the 9th armoured division is apparent to anyone.

The two examples you use of revolutionaries not attacking civilian targets have one very crucial difference to the contemporary "terrorist" organisations; they were fighting a war on their own land: the civilians were their brothers, mothers and cousins. The modern attacks have been carried out on foreign (to the perpetrators) soil. They are at "war" with these countries, so everyone is a valid target.

An equally valid (and equally flawed) WWII analogy is the allied fire bombings of Hamburg and Dresden. These were raids on almost purely civilian targets, carried out after the war was effectively already won, and intended to terrify Germany into submission. "Bomber" Harris did not differentiate between civilian and military targets (though the many crews who refused to drop their bombs did), and there was certainly nothing honourable about it.

Basically, an army on foreign soil makes little distinction between civilian and military targets. Only when they're fighting close to home do they stop and think about who's actually being killed.

You're probably not from Oklahoma

[Merk]

Cuz a truck bomb can do a wee bit more than shatter windows.

Re:Respond with more force

[Rei]

Fallujah and other hotbeds of terrorism should be reduced to overlapping bonb craters

It's good to know that you think we should make general practice of nuking cities the size of Pittsburgh. That'll prevent a dozen desparate loners from rising up among the 90% of the world (who would see that as brutally barbaric, stalinistic, and view America as the greatest evil of our time), and strike out at us. It's also sure to promote our interests worldwide; everyone loves to trade with nations that kill hundreds of thousands at a time. There's no better way to save a city than to destroy it. And when, as things stand today alone, China is viewed as a more appropriate world leader than America by even our allies like the Aussies, we can make everything better with a couple well-placed nuclear ICBMs on densely populated cities.

Ack, sorry! I just noticed that the Sarcasm-Lock light is glowing on my keyboard. Oh well, I'll retype this later.

Police request preservation of digital comms

[Elphin]

I've just received the following email via our datacenter, never seen one of these before, requesting preservation of digital communications, logs etc.... here's the message in full.

------------
A coordinated terrorist act requires communication between the parties involved. It is therefore likely that the perpretrators behind the multiple explosions in central London today have used telecommunications systems in the planning and execution of their act. The investigation into this crime will take many months and it is likely that the siginificance of specific communications data and current stored content will not become immediately apparent and there is a real risk that important evidence could be lost.

On behalf of all of the agencies involved in the investigation of this incident, I am requesting that, to the extent of what is reasonably practicable that you preserve all existing communications data and content of stored communications (email, SMS, voicemail) held by you in order that it is available to the investigation of this crime.

Data is exempt from the 1st Data Protection Principle if it is processed for the purpose of prevention and detection of crime or the apprehension and prosecution of offenders. (Section 29 (1) Data Protection Act 1998.)

This request relates only to the preservation of data and content which is currently stored. Any access requests to such data will be made through the appropriate legal process.

I will keep this matter under constant review and will notify you immediately of any change of circumstances. I will in any case update you on a monthly basis as to the on-going requirement for the preserved data.

Below I have included a list of the of data types that this request addresses. This list is not exclusive and you are asked to preserve any data that can be used to identify communications that have taken place and links to the parties.

* Content of email servers
* Email server logs
* Radius or other IP address to user resolution logs
* Pager, SMS and MMS Messages currently on the network's platform
* Content of voicemail platforms
* Call data records (includes mobile, fixed line, international gateways & VoIP)
* Subscriber records

Any questions in relation to this request should be addressed in the first instance by email to xxxx@xxxx.org. The National Hi-Tech Crime Unit is an operational unit of the National Crime Squad of England and Wales.

Signed

Jim Gamble
Deputy Director General
National Crime Squad
Chair ACPO Data Communications Group

Re:This was innevitable

[Coryoth]

However, I honestly believe a lot of the ground troops in Al Quaeda - probably some of the people who planted these bombs - joined up because of the innocent civilians who died in those military actions. If you stop the people they're recruiting, it won't matter what the leaders think.

I think a lot of people are misinformed about what exactly al Qaeda is. They don't have ground troops, they don't have an army, and post the Afghanistan invasion they don't even have much of anything resembling an organisation anymore.

What al Qaeda are/were was essentially a venture capital firm for terrorists - they would give funding to anyone who came to them with good ideas about how to kill Americans (or other westerners). Relatively speaking they were pretty small, but they did have a fair amount of cash. Usama bin Laden didn't, as far as we can tell, mastermind the WTC and Pentagon attacks. He didn't come up with the idea, he didn't plan them. He did provide the cash to the people who did though, presumably because he thought it sounded like a good idea when they came looking for funding.

Post Afghanistan al Qaeda as a funding system for terrorists is largely destroyed - they still have money, but the means to disburse it is ridiculously curtailed. Al Qaeda were, really, quite a small group, and what little there was of them was largely captured, disbanded, or dispersed.

What we have now is, instead, disparate groups of islamist terrorists (which we've always had) who have a common name to rally behind and attribute their work to - a name happily provide and publicised by the western media. It would surprise me not in the least to find that the perpertrators of the London bombings have never met with bin Laden, or any member of al Qaeda for that matter. I fully expect they are an entirely independent unrelated group who are borrowing/using the "al Qaeda" name because it carries greater recognition. Read their name and statement again with this in mind - they sound exactly like a small group of idiots trying to pretend to be a super secret branch of an organisation they've heard plenty about and would love to join, but for the life of them can't figure out how (perhaps demonstrations of terrorist acts will do it they think).

We are not facing an army, nor a terror network, nor a grand machiavellian plot. We are facing random disjoint groups islamist radicals who now have a convenient name to ascribe to so they can have a pretend sense of "belonging".

Jedidiah.

Re:More details

[jafac]

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

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

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

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

Re:Read the Koran

[Verminator]

Of course, there's nothing hateful like that in the King James Bible.

KJV - Exodus [32:27] And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

KJV - Jeremiah [18:21] Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.

KJV - Ephesians [5:5] For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

All sorts of religious texts have been used throughout history to justify abhorrent acts. Nothing new. In my book, if they initiate force against the innocent, they're bad guys.

Death won't stop them either

[roystgnr]

Nothing will stop them until they are dead.

You sound as if you think there's a finite list of terrorists out there, and as soon as we scratch every name off the list then the terrorism problem will be solved! Not a chance - those people were made into terrorists, they weren't born that way. It doesn't matter how many of this generation's terrorists die for their crimes, if there's another equally large generation coming right after them.

I'm not agreeing with the idea that the way to stop the creation of new terrorists from religious zealots is to "treat them better" or "stop offending them" - for all I know it may be just the opposite. But we do need to understand these people, desperately, because it's only understanding or dumb luck that's going to allow us to stop the terrorist meme, and I'm not feeling very lucky.

I admit vengeance sounds pretty nice, but I'd gladly trade it for a more scientific understanding of the sociology of violence. The question of how we make more dead terrorists isn't nearly as important as the question of how we protect more live innocents. If capital punishment for mass murderers is part of that, then fine, but don't lose sight of the goal just because one step along the way is more emotionally compelling.

Re:Read the Koran

[stinerman]

Traditional Muslim teaching is that all peoples "of the book" (Jews and Christians) are given a protected status since they believe in the same god. IIRC, those people are guaranteed civil rights and other such protections in a Muslim state. I cannot recall the whole status as it has been a few years since my Middle East gen ed.

Re:Respond with more force

[idsofmarch]

Okay, now breathe and think: what proportion of Al Qaeda/various Islamic extremists are there in proportion to the civilian population of a city like Fallujah?

Killing civilians is wrong and moreso dangerous because now you have just created more terrorists from the survivors--if your family is dead, it doesn't matter if it came from a car bomb or a missile, you're still going to be pissed and looking for vengence.

We need to be better than these fuckers, we need to find the ones responsible and kill them without killing everyone else around them. No negotiation, but specific targeted elimination. Carpet bombing no, a sniper's shot definitely.

mission accomplished

[Tesla Tank]

I'll bring you evidence number one.

Just look at the poor lady on the left. She's half scared to death! I don't care what the situation is, having a military personnel on a public transit is NOT good! What's that you say? We're trying to STOP terrorism? Because from where I'm standing, having a soldier with a huge fucking gun pointing at people is very intimidating. If this is how the government is reacting, I'd say the terrorist's mission is accomplished.

The goals of the terrorists are familiar not alien

[Cafe Alpha]

I see a lot of posts here blaming the war in Iraq for terrorist attacks. I just found this anonymous letter posted on http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/ (Harry's place) that explains who is being targetted by whom and why so elequently that I don't dare add anything myself: ...I would be interested to know how deep your knowledge or understanding is of Islamism: i.e. political islam. We haven't spoken about politics for some time, so I don't know if you have read any articles or books about the history, philosophy and politics of Islamism at all. If you have, I apologise for what follows.

Perhaps you think that Islamism is the same thing as Islam. Perhaps you think that it is some form of national liberation struggle, or a reaction against imperialism or Bush's failure to sign up to Kyoto.

It is not.

Radical Islamism - in its most important strain - is a political doctrine which was developed principally by two arab thinkers in the first part of the 20th century - Qutb and Banna - who were deeply immersed, not in the culture of the middle east, but in the theoretical perspective of the European romantic movement. It is not an alien, exotic or even really an "oriental" doctrine. It is directly inspired by the same intellectual currents which gave rise to romantic nationalism in the 19th century, and fascism in the mid 20th century.

You might think that its main aim is to oppose military action in the middle east.

It is not.

Its main aim, explicitly, is to restore the Caliphate, abolished by Ataturk when modern Turkey was established. It is not an anti-imperialist movement. It is an imperialist [ http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/07 /05/left_conservatism.php ] movement, yearning for an imagined golden age which it hopes to recreate.

Qutb saw the primary enemy, not as the foreign policy of Western states, but as Modernity: and in particular materialism, liberalism, and democracy. This is the primary reason that London has been bombed: not because it has "attacked muslims" but because they fear that materialism, liberalism and democracy are damaging to the values which Islamists hope to promore: piety and submission to the will of god.

The radical Islamists are not fighting a realisable campaign, in the same sense that the Irish nationalists were. They do not want a Caliphate in the sense that the IRA wanted a united and independent Ireland. They are fighting a battle against the corrupting forces of modernity for the souls of all muslims. Their principal enemies are principally "apostate" muslims, not you or I.

Why do you think a bomb went off in Edgware Road?

Do you think that it was an accident that the home to London's liberal, westernised Arab muslims was targetted?

Many western "liberals" have simply projected their own concerns about US policy onto the radical Islamists. That is not fair to them: they do NOT share your concerns, but have ones of their own which you would do well to respect. They are not fools or mindless religious fanatics: they are philosophers. You should listen, in particular, to what radical Islamists say, and not what you think they ought to be saying.

Islamist movements have been strong, and growing stronger, in the middle east since the 1950s. Banna established the Muslim Brotherhood which was brutally oppressed by Nasser. The survivors fled to Saudi, where in 1961, they established the Islamic University, in Medina. There they developed the Islamist analysis. That generation taught young, unemployed, hopeless Saudi men who went off to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechenia. Those men returned and turned their sites from the "near enemy" - the Saudi royal family who were tainted by unislamic values - to the "far enemy": the west, capitalism, and in particular the Unit

My 2 pence...

[jjeffrey]

Pretty much anything I say here will be rightly marked redundant - it's all been said above, but as a British citizen I feel I want to publish my view somewhere.

I went through a couple of the affected stations on Tuesday, almost exactly 48 hours before the bombs went off. I can tell you from first hand experience that there is no-one on the tube in London at that time that deserves to be hurt, and also that there are a lot of muslims using the tube in London.

There are people reading the paper, looking at a book, listening to an iPod, or staring out a window. They are human, and they are innocent.

We stood by our friends the US, and for that we have paid. If we have to, we will stand by the US again.

Anyone that thinks that blowing us up will change our minds does not understand who we are. This will not change us. This will not terrorise us. World war 2 did not beat us. The IRA bombing us for years did not break us.

We will do three things. We will clear up. We will grieve quietly, and then we will carry on, the same as before. They gain nothing, and they certainly do not terrorise us.

Thanks very much to everyone that has posted friendly messages, I'm sure I can speak for the majority of British /. readers when I say they are appreciated.

I'll finish with a quote from BBC news - it's paraphrased I'm afraid, but it's this: "The emergency services exuded an air of control and professionalism that sucked the terror from terrorism". I think in Britain today we can be very proud, of all our countrymen in London, and especially of our Emergency services. I hope that you folks abroad will agree.

Re:First Post

[Ilan Volow]

One or two unorganized anti-government rednecks with a truck and some fertilizer where able to cause plenty of devastation in Oklahoma.

The only resource really required to commit mass murder is a lack of respect for human life.

Re:NO , its NOT funny , Asshole

[pudge]

-US, please notice calling yourself "America" basically takes that title away from Canadians and South Americans. ... Don't get me wrong, I'm not crying to you in the hopes a whole nation will read this post and change the way they address themselves. I don't give a shit what you guys call each other... it's just silly.

We've been calling ourselves Americans before there even WAS a United States of America. There's no reason to stop now, however inaccurate it may be. Not that it is especially inaccurate: it derives from the fact that this was intended to be a new American nation, and Americans were different from Europeans, so therefore we are Americans, not Europeans. It wasn't intended to be a statement of nationality per se, but merely to distinguish from Europe. Once the nation was formed, incorporating America into its name, the moniker inevitably stuck, and there's not a thing wrong with that.

It's confusing, but not wrong.

And incidentally, you would have more luck convincing people to stop calling Native Americans, Indians, and that won't go away either, and has a far less rational (though just as historical) basis for sticking around.

Filled with hate and ignorance

[Locke2005]

Anybody that thinks a few bombs in London will make the British people back down from anything is obviously completely ignorant of history. You know there are people in London who survived the blitz in the '40's saying "What, this? This is nothing! I've seen much, much worse... and it didn't scare me then either!"

Re:It Doesn't Matter

[DG]

Keep in mind that the primary weapon during the American Revolutionary War was the smoothbore musket. A smoothbore has an advantage over the rifled musket in its rate of fire, primarily due to much less effort needed to ram the ball home.

The downside is greatly reduced accuracy. This was overcome by placing large numbers of muskets into a tightly-packed formation of troops, and having them fire volleys in unison. No individual soldier could be sure of his individual target, but a rectangular cross-section of space to the immediate front of the formation would become very hazardous to occupy.

In fact, the word of command preceeding "fire" in the British Army was not "aim" but rather "level".

Now if you are hunting food, it is very rare that you are presented with a tightly-packed formation of deer, ducks, turkeys, or whatever. Aim counts when you are substancence hunting, and so the natural weapon of the hunter is the rifle, not the smoothbore. Slow rate of fire does not matter when your target is not shooting back, and when it is likely to run or fly away after a miss.

Most of the firearms extant in the colonies at the time were hunting weapons used to obtain food, not military weapons. So the American Revolutionary Army make a tactic of not forming up in ranks to blaze away (as per current accepted military custom) but instead preferred to hide in the bushes, take a potshot, and then fall back into the woods - hit and run tactics, rather than stand and fight tactics.

(Your typical American Revolutionary was also ununiformed and so hard to identify as an "enemy combatant", where the British wore easily identified bright red coats)

The standard tactics of the guerilla throughout history - see, for example, the Mongols vs the Romans, or the Vietcong vs the US Army.

Seen from the point of view of a commander vastly outnumbered in terms of men and firepower, this is a natural and sensible thing to do. Seen from the point of view of the commander with the bigger battalions and the greater firepower, it is cowardly, sneaky, and unfair. Seen from the point of view of the line soldier, for whom death lurks behind every tree, this is... terrifying.

The major differences between the modern Islamic extremist "terrorist" and an American Revolutionary "freedom fighter" (besides the fact that the Americans won, where the Islamics are still in doubt - and never forget that the victors write history) is that, as far as I can recall at least, the American Revolutionaries limited themselves mostly to military targets (although the odd Loyalist homestead was not immune) where your modern Islamic terrorist draws no such distinction between "soldier" and "civillian" - and that is largely a cultural thing.

As far as "there being no reasoning with them" being a source of irrationality... if the Soviet Union had invaded the US (not that there was ever a real liklihood of that ever happening, but let's pretend) would you rest until all the invaders had been thrown out of your homeland? Would you accept the argument "Well they're here and they have all the guns, so we might as well just learn to speak Russian and be done with it"?

Do NOT mistake "They won't do what we want them to do!" with "irrationality".

Also, do NOT mistake "one must study the reasons why they are acting the way they are and seek to understand their point of view" with SYMPATHY for their cause. The American invasion of Afganistan was COMPLETELY justified, and I shed not a single tear for any Al-Quaida member or Taliban member killed in the process.

But one must also keep an open mind, and if one finds that one's own government has behaved badly and to some degree provoked the activity, it is just good sense to rectify the problem. Just because the terrorists want something doesn't mean that what they want is WRONG.

If I were the American President, I would have:

1) Utterly destroyed Al-Quaida in Afganistan and anybody who aided and abetted them. Utterly. Finding Bi

Re:Respond with more force

[Rei]

Well, that is kind of what Saddam did

Halabja was a quarter the population of Fallujah, and by far the largest of his attacks, and didn't have anywhere near a total loss like the GGP called for. Also, while mass graves of what in many cases were brutal atrocities have been turning up, they're nowhere near the numbers that people were putting forth before the war - under 20,000 with about a third of all suspected gravesites visited (in order of estimated importance), many of those being likely killed in the Iran-Iraq war and the Shia rebellion, and few in recent years. Still war crimes, mind you, but nothing like was portrayed pre-war.

lunatics (cough.. Iran cough..)

I don't agree with a lot of Iran's policies, but portraying them as "lunatics" is unfair. They're sane (and want to live) - they just *really, really don't like us* (less than Europe, even ;) ). Getting into the reasons behind that would take a discussion all of its own.

Are they still killing people with tanks

Misnomer. You refer to the Tiananmen Square incident with the man standing up to a tank. The man was not killed by the tank; the standoff lasted well over an hour, after which the man actually climbed *on top* of the tank so he could talk with the tank commander; concerned onlookers grabbed him off of the tank and pulled him into the crowd. The exact number of people being killed by tanks by any means is unknown, but there were no reports, at the very least, of people being run over by tanks (a common myth).

The square had long been a site of major protests (being the symbolic heart of the country, just south of the ancient Forbidden City), including in 1919, 1976, and the famous one in 1989. The ratio of protesters to deaths was about the same as at Kent State (if you only count Beijing), but the total scale of the scene was far, far larger - over 100,000 protesters in the square and 1-2 million nationwide, with between a few hundred and a few thousand protesters killed and between a few dozen and few hundred soldiers killed (a classified NSA report and the Chinese official report being low, student reports and newspaper reports being high).

Are they still promoting slave labor in their factories

What you refer to is "prisoner labor", which, while still forced labor, carries a much different connotation, as the vast majority of political prisoners were released in the Deng Xiaoping reforms and most people don't have nearly as much of a problem with murderers and rapists being forced to work as they do with the notion of "slave labor". More specifically, you refer to Laogai - "reform through labor". For both the Laogai and Tiananmen Square incidents, I suggest you read the Wikipedia articles on the subjects - they've been edited back and forth so much that all sides are pretty well represented.

Are they still leaving their baby girls in the street to die

That's not a government practice (and is somewhat of a distortion of the actual practices that lead to China's gender imbalance, which is due to a variety of male-favoring practices, not simply "exposure"). It's an individual practice, and is most common in the countryside where the government exerts less influence. The practice is rooted in Confucian tradition, and has been made worse by Chinese attempts at population control. The government has made a number of (some would claim half-hearted) attempts to stop such practices, such as banning physicians from revealing the sex of a child before it is born to the parents (to prevent sex-selective abortions) and various girl-promotional events (which have been criticized from focusing on a male-centric "what would the world be like without women" perspective).

Is that the "World Leader" country you are talking about

Even with other countries knowing all of the bad stuff China has done (and you were only getting started - China's done a whole lot more), people *still* prefer Chi