Slashdot Mirror


Six Bomb Blasts Around Central London

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

58 of 3,468 comments (clear)

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

    Source

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

    1. Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility by stinerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

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

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

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

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

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility by whopis · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is very much not the IRA.

      It is completely against their MO.

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


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


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

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

    5. Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility by jafac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    6. Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful


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

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      @de_machina
  2. travel updates for Southern england by dj_paulgibbs · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

    That could make things interesting.

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

    - Douglas Adams

  4. Mobiles by Zouden · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    --
    "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    1. Re:Mobiles by ettlz · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

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

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

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  6. Wow. by ironwill96 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
    1. Re:Wow. by AccUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.

  7. Get the latest from BBC by Codeala · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

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

    --

    Codeala - Just another mindless drone
  8. Re:First Post by MoonFog · · Score: 5, Informative

    An Al Qaeda groups has claimed responsibility already.

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

  9. Our thoughts & prayers go out to the UK by white1827 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    and if you see me strut, remind me of what left this outlaw torn...
  11. Some details by LizardKing · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  13. Watch the Law by FrostedWheat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Watch the Law by ocelotbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  14. Fuck you, man. by James+A.+D.+Joyce · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --

    Ron dies in chapter 9 of book 7.
  15. Clever by BigBadBus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

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

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

    --

    Physics: Making the universe open source.
    1. Re:Maybe 4 bombs by DigitumDei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Maybe 4 bombs by Various+Assortments · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  17. People in the UK are used to it. by caluml · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:People in the UK are used to it. by kahei · · Score: 5, Funny


      FFS man, have you been asleep??

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  18. Re:At the moment by Oxygen99 · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --
    I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
  19. Re:More details by rxmd · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
    --
    As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
  20. Re:The real bugger is... by rxmd · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
    --
    As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
  21. Re:First Post by Lurker+McLurker · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "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.

    --
    Mod parent up!
  22. Count has to be higher by alistair · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

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

  23. A Note of Solidarity by tjstork · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    This is my sig.
  24. Someone from the UK by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    I like muppets.
  25. Re:More details by uncommonlygood · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  26. conspiracy theory by fredu · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    --

    I came up with this tag first!
    /fredu
  27. I was on my way to work when it happened by Tim+C · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  28. Re:Sounds good to me. by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  29. That doesn't make any sense. by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  30. Re:To our British friends by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  31. Re:7 bombs by tigerd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  32. Re:Seven explosions by Foxyloficus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  33. Re:Those who forget history... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  34. Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs by iainl · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    More seriously,

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

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

    --
    "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    1. Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs by william_w_bush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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".

      --
      The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
  35. The Ghandi responce by TamMan2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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


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

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

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

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  36. Re:Then what? by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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-

  37. Re:More details by IngramJames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
  38. Re:More details by jpietrzak · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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

  39. start learning history... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  40. The truth is somewhere in-between by DG · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
  41. Police request preservation of digital comms by Elphin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    "The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
  43. Re:go read history by Listen+Up · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.