Explosion In London

[Shaihulud]

Im sorry that such a thing happened. I saw the news last night and thought immediately of their recent Olympic nominations. A tragedy, at least Blair says that he will continue with the G8 meeting.

 

[Perfection]

Seven Seven

What does that mean?

 

[GenMarshall]

What does that mean?

July 7th, hense 7/7. Much like there was 9/11 (The attack on the WTC and the Pentagon) and 3/11 (The attack on the Train in Madrin, Spain (spelling?))

 

[Damnyankee]

You are all in my thoughts and prayers today and will be in the coming days. I feel that America has no closer friend than the British, and therefore, this attack affects me almost as much as it would if it were my own country. May the perpetrators be brought to swift justice, that is, if they are still alive (and not part of a suicide mission).

I totally agree. We have no greater friend then Britain. Sure, we have clashed(Namely the Revolution and the War of 1812) and have come close some more times, but America has no greater friend. America was born of Britain, making us blood relatives. Long live Britannia, and Long live freedom!!!!!!!!!

 

[delsully]

It's not the IRA, it's another group.
Blair came on the telly and gave a load of BS.

Did Blair claim the IRA was responsible for this on TV?

 

[WillJ]

Well, I've received word that a friend of mine staying in London is OK.

 

[GenMarshall]

Well, I've received word that a friend of mine staying in London is OK.

Such good news to hear

 

[cgannon64]

I caught a bit of some news banner that unexploded bombs were found - was this in London, or somewhere else? Is this even true?

(People on hiatus are still allowed to come back for big news, I think.)

 

[Zardnaar]

Whats the current death toll?

 

[ainwood]

I caught a bit of some news banner that unexploded bombs were found - was this in London, or somewhere else? Is this even true?

(People on hiatus are still allowed to come back for big news, I think.)

Someone mentioned that the cellphone towers were blocked-out after the first bombs, in case cellphones were being used to detonate them. If unexploded bombs were found, then this was a good move!

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

Condolences to those who are involve in this disaster.

 

[Damnyankee]

Someone mentioned that the cellphone towers were blocked-out after the first bombs, in case cellphones were being used to detonate them. If unexploded bombs were found, then this was a good move!

If that was the case, Anti-Terriost organizations would certainly make this the rules during an attack.

 

[plustaticman]

My deepest condolences to anybody here who has been personally touched by the attacks. They were vicious and depraved and cruel, and no people should have to face something like this. These are ordinary people, just heading in for the day's work, who were incinerated, who were blown apart, whose blood was sprayed onto buildings, who had arms torn off, who climbed over bodies to escape from smoke-filled subway cars, who are suffering in hospital beds at this very moment. Britain has become the fourth western nation whose populace has now tasted, in the last four years, the bitter fruit of its foreign policy. Whether the invasion of Iraq was right or wrong, the English people have been given a small taste of the suffering experienced by many there and elsewhere.

Let us pray for the living, mourn the dead, and hope that this horrific act does not cause immoderate and unadvised shifts in attitudes or policies. We can expect more events like this-- explosions in Rome, carnage in Warsaw, destruction in Copenhagen, perhaps. Who knows, maybe even Toronto will come in for its share. Western governments can no longer assume that their actions abroad will be without serious repercussions at home.

It is impossible to know your true motives behind your comments and I will not therefore comment on them. However, I will say that what you wrote was tasteless.

 

[Olorin0222]

What good are guns when all a guy has to do is drop a duffel bag with the explosives and walk off? Dogs are probably more useful.

I don't know if I did mention it, but there was bomb sniffing dogs. By the way, guns would be useful if a guy was about to blow himself up, you see that, you put one between his eyes.

Unfortunately, homicide bombers take precautions so that no one knows what they are doing. That is why they can walk into high populated areas and detonate with no one stopping them.

In this particular instance, I believe it is developing that most if not all the bombs were set off by timing devices or detonators, not by suicide bombers.

I caught a bit of some news banner that unexploded bombs were found - was this in London, or somewhere else? Is this even true?

I believe that there was a report of an unexploded bomb at the Victoria Station...which I believe is a major station near the House of Parliament. A Londoner to verify?

Whats the current death toll?

I believe the count has been at 37 killed and 700 injured for long enough for that to be good for now.

 

[Damnyankee]

I believe the count has been at 37 killed and 700 injured for long enough for that to be good for now.

My God... horrible

 

[Kosez]

I would like to express my sympathies with Londoners and tourists in London.
I believe death roll is not importand, one life is too many.
I would like to share my opinion, if I may.

If it's true that this was Al-Qaeada, we shouldn't be surprised. London is very importand city, financial, economical, cultural centre. And UK has exposed its relations towards AQ ground very much. And after Madrid, it was clear, that London is one of the targets that may follow soon.
For a moment there, we thought we destroyed Al-Qaeda. But it is not so. AQ is still very strong in Afghanistan and growing stronger. They work with talibs, but these days you cannot differ one from another. USA and other nations have obviously put the fight agains AQ aside, so AQ was able to regroup.

1. If US and all others would dedicate more time and means to fight AQ, attack may not happen.
2. If UK wouldn't put itself in a line of fire, meaning, if it wouldn't engage in Iraq and support US way of anti terrorism war; attack may not happen.

1. There were no bombings in a time of strong engagement in Afghanistan.
2. There were no attacks or threats from AQ in countries that were not engaged in Iraq.

What do you think?

 

[wit>trope]

Please be more precise. That is like saying the IRA bombings are catholic.

This is Al-Qaeda.

Apples and oranges really. Al-Qaeda is inspired by their Muslim religion. The IRA is inspired not so much by their Catholic religion but a territorial and oppression factor that has more to do with Ireland and the Irish people and Irish land and Irish rights than it has to do with Catholicism. If you took out the Catholic versus Protestant religion factor and replaced it with something else (like Quaker versus Methodist or whatever), the nature of the conflict in northern Ireland would remain pretty much the same. Not so with Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda are fighting a fundamentally RELIGIOUS war based on their RELIGION which is Islam (they want to establish Islamic theocracies all around the world as much as possible) Also, there are distinct BRANCHES OF ISLAM which support terrorism. There's no branch of Catholicism that supports terrorism (IRA is not a branch of Catholicism anymore than the Italian Mafia is a branch of Catholicisim -- but with Islam there are branches like the WAHABI (sp?) branch which supports terrorism).

In addition to all that, there are Islamic terrorist groups OTHER THAN Al-Qaeda. So Al-Qaeda is a subset of Islamic terrorists groups. The IRA is not (it's not really a Catholic-oriented group in the first place ... some of its members are probably not even Catholic ... and there are no other terrorist groups that are Catholic anyway).

 

[Alvaro da Luna]

Apples and oranges really. Al-Qaeda is inspired by their Muslim religion. The IRA is inspired not so much by their Catholic religion but a territorial and oppression factor that has more to do with Ireland and the Irish people and Irish land and Irish rights than it has to do with Catholicism. If you took out the Catholic versus Protestant religion factor and replaced it with something else (like Quaker versus Methodist or whatever), the nature of the conflict in northern Ireland would remain pretty much the same. Not so with Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda are fighting a fundamentally RELIGIOUS war based on their RELIGION which is Islam. Also, there are distinct BRANCHES OF ISLAM which support terrorism. There's no branch of Catholicism that supports terrorism (IRA is not a branch of Catholicism anymore than the Italian Mafia is a branch of Catholicisim -- but with Islam there are branches like the WAHABI (sp?) branch which supports terrorism).

In addition to all that, there are Islamic terrorist groups OTHER THAN Al-Qaeda. So Al-Qaeda is a subset of Islamic terrorists groups. The IRA is not (it's not really a Catholic-oriented group in the first place ... some of its members are probably not even Catholic ... and there are no other terrorist groups that are Catholic anyway).

Terrorism is just as less inherent in Islam. The Al-Qaeda ideology is most likely a result of colonial grievances mixed with the deep desire to rejuvinate the native civilization. Therefore, the use of religion (Islam) is a subset of the Al-Qaeda ideology, not the other way around.

On a side note, you seem to be painting the whole of Islam with the Wahabi brush. What does it matter to the rest of the religion's definition if a fanatical sect arose from within. Many sects are clearly non-fundamentalist, which suggests no inherent fanaticism. It implies Wahabism is rather the exception than the rule.

 

[Rambuchan]

Terrorism is just as less inherent in Islam. The Al-Qaeda ideology is most likely a result of colonial grievances mixed with the deep desire to rejuvinate the native civilization. Therefore, the use of religion (Islam) is a subset of the Al-Qaeda ideology, not the other way around.

On a side note, you seem to be painting the whole of Islam with the Wahabi brush. What does it matter to the rest of the religion's definition if a fanatical sect arose from within. Many sects are clearly non-fundamentalist, which suggests no inherent fanaticism. It implies Wahabism is rather the exception than the rule.

Thank you for pointing out these subtleties which indeed need to be understood before 'aggressive action' is taken. Like I said before and keep saying, going after them with the bomb and gun simply makes them angrier and more likely to conduct acts of terror. And we never find them this way anyway, because we have created too many enemies, who all work together invariably, causing us to believe that there is one monolithic extremist Islamic movement bent on the West's destruction. It's not true - there are many groups, some organised and powerful, some not. But we should stop giving these disparate groups a reason to unite.

 

[BasketCase]

Like I said before and keep saying, going after them with the bomb and gun simply makes them angrier and more likely to conduct acts of terror.

When I was in grade school, my teachers were saying exactly the same thing: don't retaliate against the campus bully. Don't fight back. That's what the bully wants you to do.

Every one of my teachers was wrong. NOT fighting is what made things worse. The only thing that caused the school bully to back off was to beat the crap out of him.

The real world is, unfortunately, just like the school grounds.