Terrorist attacks in London

[SomeBloke]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/london.tube/index.html


Anyone think of some terrorists with an interest in numerology?
7/7/2005 8:50

On another board I saw someone request prayers for the injured/dead, think I'll go do that.

[RT]

To all my UK friends and relatives. My thoughts and prayers go out all.

With Deepest Sympathy,

RT

[Selski]

From someone who lived/worked in London for the past...hmmm....18 years or so.

It was almost inevitable that this was going to happen.  London has been bracing itself for something like this for a while.

Londoners have been used to bomb threats on the Underground on a fairly regular basis (these don't get reported) and for a period of time there were no public bins on any of the major roads.

Many times I've sat in a darkened tunnel on the London Underground for 15 minutes or more with no word of an announcement as to why we've stopped.  15 minutes is a LONG time in the dark with no explanation.

This may sound strange, but in actual fact, when it came, it wasn't as bad as I expected it to be.  I thought the Docklands would be hit by an almighty explosion.  I know for a fact that one building alone holds 8,000 people there and that would mean a lot more casualties.  

My heart goes out to those who are injured and the families.  It must be hell for them.

I'm one of the very lucky ones.  I moved away from London two weeks ago.  I used to work in Mayfair part-time and Thursdays was one of my working days.  Not that I'd have been hit, but I'd have been in the midst of it.  My timing was impeccable, oddly enough.

Sarah

[OrionsDream]

I think your timing would have been 'impecable' if you had moved out a day earlier, and you WOULD have been hit especially that 2nd one, but still saved u trouble.

Death toll keeps climbing according to the news . The number of cities in diff. countries keeps climbing that's been hit by terrorist atttacks...
NYC, Madrid, London... and more i'm sure i just cant remember

[ap]

Having lived through the horror of 9/11 when I was living in NYC, I know that the aftermath of a terrorist attack can be traumatic beyond description.  My heart goes out to all those people in London who are now suffering as a result of this senseless crime of violence.  My condolences to all who have lost a loved one or a good friend in this horrific act of violence.    

Can't help but wonder what the powers that be at the G8 Summit are going to try to slip by us while the attention of the world is focused on the crisis in London.  

[The Present Moment]

7 bombs on 7/7/7.

[OrionsDream]

Says 4 (not 7) bombs on:
http://www.nytimes.com/
-the new york times says '4 blasts'
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/london.tube/index.html
cnn says '4 bombs'
I assume that new york times meant bombs

[The Present Moment]

Says 4 (not 7) bombs on:
http://www.nytimes.com/
-the new york times says '4 blasts'
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/london.tube/index.html
cnn says '4 bombs'
I assume that new york times meant bombs

My mistake; I thought there had been five. Two were recovered undetonated.

[Nick]

Heartfelt sympathy for all the families who have lost loved ones.  

Healing for all involved: all the victims, and for those that need to better learn our underlying interconnectedness.
[/color]

[Leyla]

I bet there were seven bombs. 4 that went off, 2 found undetonated, and one they missed.

[Frank]

Hi:

I always find this is a time to reflect on the horrors of the devices we have invented called bombs and the devastation and destruction they cause. When people in the UK vote to engage in a war, that war entails the dropping of bombs in some foreign land. Bombs that wreak death and destruction, blowing innocent women and children to bits with rockets, grenades, mines and a plethora of other weapons to boot.

Of course, it's "easy" for a militarised, dehumanised automaton to push a button from several hundred miles away and a guided missile does the dirty work.

None of us get to see the real images of the bodies blown apart in any event.

A child reduced to mere shards of flesh and bone, and blood seeping into the earth; a mother weeping over a charred piece of flesh that was once her child's face. It is all very remote and unreal. But to the people who are impacted by this kind of action it is very real. They have loved ones as well. They care just as much for their children as we do, and we cannot keep sending bombs over to the "other side" and expect these people to keep on taking it.

There are no justifications for the actions that took place yesterday, just as there are no justifications, IMO, for the actions initiated from "our" side. But, of course, when it's "us" planting the bombs from the comfort of our cosy western enclave, perhaps most of us believe the end justifies the means. Well, I'm suggesting the "other side" kinda feel the same way.

Myself, I am dearly hoping that this will signal the end of the British public's support for the military actions in Iraq. Quite simply, if we keep supporting acts of terror then acts of terror are going to keep befalling us. We will have to see that connection one day. Preferably sooner rather than later. There will be those who will no-doubt be calling for "revenge" but this is a time for great compassion and restraint, a time to reflect on British military actions thus far and realise, once and for all, that war is not the answer.

Yours,
Frank

[Frank]

"I know for a fact that one building alone holds 8,000 people there and that would mean a lot more casualties."

Sarah:

I think the goal of the people who planted these devices was not to cause the maximum amount of casualties. I think their goal was to incapacitate the whole of central London and wreak utter havoc, rather than death and destruction.

It would take a LOT of serious explosives to devastate a large building. Plus, you have the difficulty of finding a delivery system for those explosives. Some kind of manual delivery would be impossible. The only alternative is to do it remotely. Problem is, the military hardware to do that with the requisite degree of accuracy is rather hard to obtain and extremely expensive.

To incapacitate the Tube, all you would need are 4 or 5 strategically placed bombs of a size you could carry in a medium-sized handbag, plus they blew up one bus. This latter action tells me they were gunning to wreak havoc rather than cause maximum fatalities. After all, why blow up one bus? In my opinion, their specific goal was to paralyse the public transportation system. Doing this will incapacitate the whole of central London and you wreak total havoc. Plus, you now have the fear aspect. Anyone going on a Tube or bus for the next however-length of time will be wondering if they'll be next.

So to me, they were going for maximum havoc coupled with maximum psychological impact.

Yours,
Frank

[Hans Solo]

Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:12 am    Post subject:  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi:

I always find this is a time to reflect on the horrors of the devices we have invented called bombs and the devastation and destruction they cause. When people in the UK vote to engage in a war, that war entails the dropping of bombs in some foreign land. Bombs that wreak death and destruction, blowing innocent women and children to bits with rockets, grenades, mines and a plethora of other weapons to boot.

Of course, it's "easy" for a militarised, dehumanised automaton to push a button from several hundred miles away and a guided missile does the dirty work.

None of us get to see the real images of the bodies blown apart in any event.

A child reduced to mere shards of flesh and bone, and blood seeping into the earth; a mother weeping over a charred piece of flesh that was once her child's face. It is all very remote and unreal. But to the people who are impacted by this kind of action it is very real. They have loved ones as well. They care just as much for their children as we do, and we cannot keep sending bombs over to the "other side" and expect these people to keep on taking it.

There are no justifications for the actions that took place yesterday, just as there are no justifications, IMO, for the actions initiated from "our" side. But, of course, when it's "us" planting the bombs from the comfort of our cosy western enclave, perhaps most of us believe the end justifies the means. Well, I'm suggesting the "other side" kinda feel the same way.

Myself, I am dearly hoping that this will signal the end of the British public's support for the military actions in Iraq. Quite simply, if we keep supporting acts of terror then acts of terror are going to keep befalling us. We will have to see that connection one day. Preferably sooner rather than later. There will be those who will no-doubt be calling for "revenge" but this is a time for great compassion and restraint, a time to reflect on British military actions thus far and realise, once and for all, that war is not the answer.  

Great post Frank.  People have to finally realize that OUR governments are to blame.  We always stick our noses into other people business and prop up dictators in these countries as long as the oil flows, or we have some sort of influence over these leaders.  We proped up Alkaida and Sadamm when it benefited us, and when these leaders eventually turn on us we try to remove them and this cycle of violence continues.  We never seems to learn from history, you can ONLY have peace with peace.  Where are the bombs blowing up in Switzerland?  The War on Terrorism means there will be more terrorism.  

There is a GREAT talk show that is discussing this disaster in a thoughtful way, finally.  www.freetalklive.com  (It is in the archives section on the right side of the page.)

In all, I feel sorry for the UK citizens that have to suffer through this tragedy, but I also feel sorry for the innocent civilians in the Middle East that have to suffer throught this thoughtless war.

Han Solo

[.Rachel.]

An awful thing to happen, but also, something that was an unfortunate inevitability. My heart goes out to those suffering right now due to this, and my thoughts and prayers are with all those effected.

[Frank]

Hans:

Thanks for the link.

I read a number of articles from selected journalists of a more serious and reflective ilk, and Robert Fisk of the Independent always has some sensible things to say on these kinds of issues.

Below is the start of an article published today. I haven't got the whole thing as it's currently online pay-per-view due to the fact that it's todays. But you can see from the intro where he is coming from.

Yours,
Frank


Robert Fisk: The reality of this barbaric bombing
If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us think insurgency won't come to us?

By Robert Fisk

Published: 08 July 2005

"If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, "we will bomb yours." There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.

And it's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush - and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali.

Article Length: 759 words (approx.)

[Hans Solo]

this article was on www.lewrockwell.com one of my favorite sites.


The Failed War on Terrorism
by Anthony Gregory
by Anthony Gregory

       

The savage attack in London, for which al Qaeda has reportedly taken credit, is just one more indication that the War on Terrorism is not working.

Just recently, the Bush administration cancelled the publication of the annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report, which would have embarrassingly revealed that major terrorist attacks worldwide increased from 175 in 2003 to 625 in 2004. The War Party has been arguing for almost four years that the Bush administration's War on Terrorism has reduced the number of terrorist attacks throughout the globe, but all data seem to demonstrate an increase.

The most loyal Terror Warriors weren't even shaken by the leaked Rumsfeld memo of October 2003, which candidly and simply conceded the most basic limitations inherent in the U.S. government's bureaucratic central-planning approach to wiping out global terrorism:

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.

This all made perfect sense, and was refreshing to see coming from the Secretary of Defense. Terrorism is a tactic, "a form of action available to virtually any determined adult anywhere anytime," as Robert Higgs once wrote. For this reason, a "War on terrorism... can be only a figure of speech." And it can only be a failure. Short of wiping out the human race, all the nuclear bombs in the world and preemptive strikes until the end of time cannot prevent what happened in London. Only by looking at the Western policies in the Middle East to which this fundamentalist violence is a response do we have a chance of isolating our countries from such hostility.

Many have warned that the War on Terrorism, and especially the Iraq war, would only augment the threat of international terrorism, serving as just the example of genuine grievances that such maniacs as bin Laden need to gain followers and garner support in dollars and lives. Some Middle Easterners certainly hate Americans and Westerners for no reason other than our cultural identity. But they become folk heroes only when the Osamas of the world have such incidents of imperialism as Shock and Awe to point to.

The horrific atrocity in London is simply the latest and most pronounced incident of the terrorism incited by the War on Terror, at least since the attack in Madrid. When the Spanish were attacked, they did the wise thing. They pulled out of Iraq, on schedule, and distanced themselves from the belligerent U.S. foreign policy of perpetual war for its own sake. They did not shy away from the principle of justice for actual terrorists, only from a policy of cyclical violence guaranteed to make matters worse.

How horrible it is that innocent Britons would pay for the crimes of their own government and the U.S. government of which London is one of the most loyal satellites. The victims were not responsible for what their government had done, but thanks to the unfortunate realities of partisan democratic politics, the hawkish Blair was reelected and the English State has continued to side with the U.S. State in its terrible foreign misadventures.

And yet, like clockwork, we can expect calls for redoubling the efforts to solve Islamic terror with State terror, to vanquish this fanatic violence with well-calculated and engineered violence of our own. As far as the warmongers are concerned, any apparent decline in terrorism is a great reason to continue the war, the only better reason being if the war is utterly failing to reduce terrorism at all.

We will likely also hear another argument riddled with bloody paradoxes. In the midst of this bloodshed we will hear about the tragic loss of innocent life and the preciousness of every victim of the attack. But if Britain considers pulling out, as Spain did, we will likely hear that such loss of life is the price "we" must all pay to maintain international order and ensure the progress of the civilizing forces of the Global War on Terror. The British will be accused of being wimps, as were the Spanish when they decided that the hopeless project in the Middle East was not worth any more Spanish blood – and as were the French and Germans when they decided from the beginning that they had had enough war in the past and did not need any more unnecessary militarism just to please a hyper-powerful bloodthirsty Uncle Sam. And so the attack described today as being beyond the sensibilities of all civilized people, and thus warranting an amplified campaign of Anglo-American aggression against Arabs and Muslims, may tomorrow be shrugged off nonchalantly as the price great Empires must pay in the blood of "their" subjects for the benefit of leading the world to a Brave New future.

These words are not unpatriotic in any real sense, nor do I mean the least bit to slight those whose loved ones were murdered in Britain. Like the thousands of innocents who died in New York on September 11, 2001, the nearly two hundred who died in Madrid on March 11, 2004, and the tens of thousands who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since even before the official War on Terror began, they were all victims of aggression, mass violence and insanity. It is never right to attack innocent people for the crimes of a guilty few. Never. Nor does it ever bring about the end of violence always promised of it. This truth applies to the War on Terrorism just as it applies to the terrorist attacks conducted by Muslim extremists, for there is no moral or practical reason to support either type of violence. The cycle of bloodshed will only continue now, but it is largely up to the British people whether or not the role of their own government in the cycle will be greater or lesser than it has been.

The real triumph of civilization is the extent to which coercion is banished from human relations. Brute force is not our salvation, especially as directed by State central planning and done so with little regard for the innocents who inevitably die in warfare. Such violence did nothing to save the innocents who died in London, nor can it do anything to bring those people back or solve the underlying problem

Han Solo

[Nick]

I would like to acknowledge my appreciation also for that link Hans.

What I would add to what has been said is that there are many here in the US who are opposed to the war in Iraq.

There is an inability for mainstream America to listen and learn why this war is a mistake. Most of the serious alternative discussions are to be found only by doing some digging (as Hans has done). Unfortunately, a lot of folks don't do that, and are instead spoonfed the administration's viewpoint.

It is distressing for someone my age to have witnessed everything from Viet Nam to this current madness. My hope is that someday the US will transition from world policeman to friendly neighbor. No clue if and when that will happen though.  

[greatoutdoors]

Okay, that just about does it. I will keep this civil, but the sheep are feeding freely here, with their heads in the usual place!

First, I join in expressing my heartfelt sympathy to the victims of this latest act of savagery. Second, I really do not think this is the time or place for this dicussion, but I just started steaming as I read the posts. Does no one think anymore?!
Frank, do you realize what you are saying when you state:

...reflect on the horrors of the devices we have invented...

Are you really saying that it is not people using those devices who are inflicting the horror?    Do you actually believe the devices are themselves motivated to terror and killing? And are you also one of those who spout that there is "no good or evil" in the world? (No, this is not a personal attack and I am not trying to be insulting or rude.)

On an entirely different level we could debate the ethics of those people who invented the devices you mention. At some level, all destructive devices also have a constructive purpose -- building dams, nuclear power, assisting in gathering food for starving people, etc. And whether those humane projects actually result in good in the long run can also be debated. But my point here is that they are devices -- neither good nor bad in their own right. It is the people who use them who are evil, yes -- evil! Those people chose a course of action they knew would bring hurt, and they delight in it! Evil!! Please, let's stop listening to the "politically correct committee" and start calling a spade a spade. There is personal accountability and we are all responsible for our own actions. This business of "Oh the poor criminal, or the poor terrorist; we must sympathize with them because they've had a hard life. That's what makes them do what they do -- they're victims too." Gag me! Okay, sorry -- enough ranting. Can you see what I am trying to say?

And that's not even the focus of my post!  

Another one: Frank or Han said:

...U.S. government of which London is one of the most loyal satellites...

People, stop sounding like parrots and wake up! Can you not see that the story and history between America and Great Britain is one of the greatest examples of the triumph of love, respect, friendship, loyalty, etc. in the history of our world? Does anyone happen to recall a couple of little things like the American Revolution and the War of 1812? We were enemies, mates -- hated each other; took every opportunity to trade shots; nothing nice to say. Then it finally dawned on both sides that maybe we each weren't so bad after all. (I think it began over WWII, but don't quote me.) All right, granted; right now the U.S. is a "bigger power" than England. But that could (and will) change at any time really. And I like to think the new-found friendship will still be there. And I think that friendship is about more than money. If I'm right, England is far from the largest recipient of American money. So stop with the "satellite" crap already! At least give credit where it's due!

Now for the quoted article:

...the Spanish when they decided that the hopeless project in the Middle East was not worth any more Spanish blood...

About Spain caving in to terrorism, I can certainly see the logic in that. If my neighbor displeases me I will just destroy something he values. Then I'll tell him he must do as I require or I will do something worse next time. He capitulates if he is Spain, and I am his ruler. Who needs freedom anyway -- much better to be ruled by threat of violence!

...as were the French and Germans when they decided from the beginning that they had had enough war in the past...

Oh puuleeeeze! France and Germany had extremely lucrative financial reasons for not wanting the Iraq status quo to be disturbed. It was not their innate resistance to war. Come on sheep, we need to think a little bit here. Follow the money! And, let's see, was the U.N. also opposed to intervening in Iraq? Yes? Wonder why that could be... Naah, couldn't have anything to do with all the loot they were skimming from the "oil for food" fiasco... certainly not! Follow the money! Think!

Now that you have me labeled as a card-carrying Republican (Wrong!), let me cover a few more items.

Do I belive Bush deliberately lied about the WMD before we invaded Iraq? No. I believe both we and England were relying on the intelligence we had available at the time. Clinton used the same intelligence to tell us Iraq was into the WMD game and took his own military action to try and stop it. Do I believe Bush had his own reasons for going into Iraq? Yes. Again, if you want to know the truth, follow the money! I just haven't quite figured out what sum of money would be worth the lives of our soldiers.

I also believe most if not all of our military planners should be sent back to kindergarden for the incredible, unbelievable, (words fail me) total stupidity of their failure to plan for the aftermath of our initial attack! Did they think Saddam's army was going to just disappear? Did they have no clue there just might be a tiny bit of looting and civil disobedience after we moved in? Would the result of just a tad more prior planning have been a less horrific battle than is now taking place? I say yes! We should never have invaded Iraq without clear and definite goals and objectives. "Freeing the Iraqis" is a noble phrase, but "it don't put bread on the table."

As to the war on terrorism, neither the U.S. nor England are fighting it. We are not controlling our borders; we are not expellling known terrorist sympathisers; for crying out loud, we are educating terrorists in our schools! The war in Afghanistan I can see -- we knew there were terrorist training camps, supply dumps and God knows what else there and it makes sense to take them out.

I firmly believe we must fight terrorism. I, for one, don't like the idea of being ruled by a neighborhood bully. They aren't going to just go away. Those homicidal fanatics have been shooting at us for many, many years and part of what keeps them coming is the fact that we are letting them get away with it. Yes, even Bush -- have you seen anything from him against the Saudis? No, and not likely to, either.

Now, to Frank and Han: how would you stop the violence? It's a serious question -- if we could come up with a rational plan perhaps we can find a way to make it heard.

I understand your aversion to violence and I share it. And I abhor the suffering of innocents -- though I think we may have a different idea of who exactly are those "innocents." At the same time, I'll go back to the very old rabid dog comparison. You cannot reason with a vicious, fatally diseased animal. It's him, or you.

Ghandi used non-violent resistance to defeat the British in India some time back. It sounds good. Then realize that he lost thousands of his followers killed and likely many more injured before his cause prevailed. And he was dealing with a relatively humane government. Had he been dealing with those we face, his cause, and his people, would simply have been exterminated. Anyone read the original War of the Worlds? That's who we're fighting. They don't want to negotiate, they don't want peace. They want us dead -- end of story. Only this time, I don't think a common cold virus is going to come and save us.

So I repeat my question -- how would you handle it?

[OrionsDream]

Greatoutdoors:
"no good or evil" in the world? (No, this is not a personal attack and I am not trying to be insulting or rude.) "

I see you have not done your research. To ignorant people there is good and evil. Is it evil to fight for your just cause for brilliant victory in the face of all odds? Well thats what terrorists think when they attack.
We think its evil, they think its good. Who is to say that our opinion is better than theres.
Now of course, just out of common sense in my respect, it seems evil. But is it evil for a shark to eat a dolphin? Its just what they do.

I'm glad though that you stated all the above as your OPINION and not facts, as is this post.

[RT]

Its just what they do.

I'm glad though that you stated all the above as your OPINION and not facts, as is this post.

As long as their are radical religious sects, politicians, lobbyists, Large corporations and masses of people we will have conflicts in the world.

[OrionsDream]

Right, you cant just state your side as the right one, and start blowing off and mocking other's, even though its seems its alright to.

[no_leaf_clover]

I firmly believe we must fight terrorism. I, for one, don't like the idea of being ruled by a neighborhood bully. They aren't going to just go away. Those homicidal fanatics have been shooting at us for many, many years and part of what keeps them coming is the fact that we are letting them get away with it.

Like OrionsDream said, it's not that cut and dry as "bad guys" and "good guys".

The US has been terrorizing the Mid-East and other areas of the world for decades, and supporting Israel with weapons far superior to any Islamic nation's. It's no surprise "they" are bombing us, though I have my doubts as to who actually did it at such a convenient time for "us".

The US is the only nation in the world that has been condemned by the World Court for terrorism. Naturally, our arrogant government no longer pays any mind to the World Court, but if you were to look up why exactly we were condemned, you would quickly realize who the "bully" is in these foreign wars. It isn't those little, foreign extremist groups. It's the US.

[Shinobi]

...

[OrionsDream]

All no_leaf said was that thats what the world court said. We all know that all those countries commited terrorist acts.

[Nay]

With all the fighting going on, you'd think it would teach US not to fight.  This will always be a dividing factor which I hate, but will never change....so sad.

Greatoutdoors, I understand you...completely, which is why I stray away from these political fueled topics.  It is parroting, I agree, whole heartily.

I often feel like the black sheep on these forums because of my personal views...but eh, I wouldn't be me if I followed right along just to feel embraced by the majority.

Nay

EDIT: LOL!  and I said my say in less than a hundred words....gosh, people do love to hear themselves talk..LOL!