Suspected terrorist attacks in London

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Jul 7 2005, 02:38 PM
I know there were a number of Calgarypuckers through London in the last couple of months but isn't there someone there currently as well?

Cowperson

I left London on monday.

Absolutely sickening. Someone should tell us again that the war on terror shoulndt be fought and it will slowly go away. :angry:

PS Does anyone (abstract?) know the name of street where was the bus blown up? Wasnt it Baker st.?

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Pagal4321@Jul 7 2005, 02:39 PM
I'm gonna have to go and disagree with tranny on this one, you can't possibly think London was a random target.
That's like claiming the WTC was a random target for 9/11. These terrorists do large scale attacks for a reason, god only knows what it is.

These are some horrible horrible pictures.....and this makes security even tighter around the world now.

Did you miss this part?

What i meant was the randomness of the actual explosions...in 4 seperate places all over the core of the city.

1 bus, 3 tunnels....all packed with people. No government building, no building of status like the WTC represented.

Clearly there wasn't a particular target per se other than a bunch of Brits going about their lives.

Unlike the WTC.

3 subways and a bus. This is much more like what happens with Palestinians and their targets in Israel (buses, cafes etc) than something so symbolic/functional as the WTC.

9/11 stopped commerce for days on an international level and paralyzed air travel for almost as long. This was just random attacks to try and terrorize free people.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jul 7 2005, 02:42 PM


Absolutely sickening. Someone should tell us again that the war on terror shoulndt be fought and it will slowly go away. :angry:

PS Does anyone (abstract?) know the name of street where was the bus blown up? Wasnt it Baker st.?

At 9:47 a.m. there was an explosion on a bus at Upper Woburn Place near Tavistock Square. Fatalities have been confirmed, but the number is unknown at this stage.

From CNN.

[Pagal4321]

Yes, my bad I clearly missed that comment, the caffine buzz is wearing off.

I think they might have targeted the bus and trains just due to easy access. I'm sure it would be a lot harder to targer say a government building then getting onto a public transportation vehicle.
Assuming it had something to do with the Olympics and the amount of media with their eyes on London, an attack might have been made on the fly to create more terror around the world. And what better way to send a message then to attack the city with the most media attention at the current time?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Neeper@Jul 7 2005, 08:25 AM
For some reason this hits "home". Even though I don't live there, I was there only 1 month ago.

I know what you mean. I got back exactly 1 month ago 2day and Having been to those places really makes it hit home more than the other stories that feel so far away to me. Just having been on those trains so many times makes it easy to recollect exactly what they're like and visualize what happened today.
Sad day. Hope everyone's families and friends are OK. Already got the good news that mine are.

[dustygoon]

Originally posted by Pagal4321@Jul 7 2005, 06:58 PM
Yes, my bad I clearly missed that comment, the caffine buzz is wearing off.

I think they might have targeted the bus and trains just due to easy access. I'm sure it would be a lot harder to targer say a government building then getting onto a public transportation vehicle.
Assuming it had something to do with the Olympics and the amount of media with their eyes on London, an attack might have been made on the fly to create more terror around the world. And what better way to send a message then to attack the city with the most media attention at the current time?

They target the transit system because it is so central to London life and the economy. This bombing shuts down swathes of commercial activity by shutting down the tube. Getting into the city is impossible unless you pay a taxi (gets pricey and they can only take so many people) or have a scooter. There is no parking. And then add in the fear that people will have afterwards when the ride the tube. I can tell you for one that after 9/11, i cabbed it daily for a couple months. Scary shinguard.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Jul 7 2005, 11:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Jul 7 2005, 11:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Jul 7 2005, 02:38 PM
I know there were a number of Calgarypuckers through London in the last couple of months but isn't there someone there currently as well?

Cowperson

I left London on monday.

Absolutely sickening. Someone should tell us again that the war on terror shoulndt be fought and it will slowly go away. :angry:

PS Does anyone (abstract?) know the name of street where was the bus blown up? Wasnt it Baker st.? [/b][/quote]
I think it's the war in iraq that would be argued against, who'd argue against the war on terror?

[FlamesAddiction]

Public opinion in England was already leaning against the war in Iraq. All that these terrorists will accomplish is more solidarity against them and the issues that are important to them (like the war in Iraq).

Such a tragic waste. None of this will accomplish anything for them or their causes.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Jul 7 2005, 04:30 PM
Public opinion in England was already leaning against the war in Iraq.# All that these terrorists will accomplish is more solidarity against them and the issues that are important to them (like the war in Iraq).

Such a tragic waste.# None of this will accomplish anything for them or their causes.

Yes it does, because their cause is simply the annhilation of all infidels (unfaithful) and every body is one count toward their twisted way of thinking. We aren't human beings in their eyes, and even speaking with some Muslims, they understand that their radical counterparts don't feel sympathy or guilt toward these attrocities.

They don't even care or think of perhaps a mother, or a child killed. To them, they were all guilty to begin with and it's the net result, which only accelerates their real cause - to effect the clash of civilizations in which they believe they will come out victorious by divine intervention. They want to fuel anger and hatred because they want to polarize religion and culture because it adds numbers to their ranks and increases their fervor. And if they die along they way, the more martyrs for their cause the better. It's a horribly encompassing inhuman ideology.

And analysts say that London was probably chosen as a prime target as Al Queda is having difficulty getting operatives into the U.S. while London remained largely unrestricted. 9/11 needed planes to hit their targets and the WTC was the hub of Western economic activity. In London, the transportation infrastructure was targetted because it's the lifeblood of England and an easily accessible, simple way to kill scores of civilians.

It's a catch-22, engaging in the War in Iraq fuels religious and ideological fervor and hatred toward the west which lead to these horrible and cowardly acts. However, all of this starts in the education, see all the articles written about Islamic schools indoctrinating radicalism in students at a young age throughout the Middle East and deep into Asia (Malasyia, Indonesia). Just like that last article about the journalist who as a child was sent to an Islamic boarding school in Indonesia where a large proportion of his friends ended up as radicals and militants. These are the real training camps for Al Queda, not those military barracks with monkey bars in the desert that you see. These are places where radical scripture is written on the walls and recited daily and indoctrinated into youth as "wholesome" teachings while instructors encourage students to enter into their militant networks. They grow up believing and knowing nothing else. If you don't invade another country, how do you change their education? How can you convince political bodies to reform (see Iran where reformists were totally defeated in the last election)?

It's a problem the U.S. has no option but to go in and fix because if you leave it alone, it won't fix itself. Communism is slowly being defeated but that ideology never posed such a veiled, unpredictable, and absolutely ongoing effective threat. Sure the Russians had nukes but you could see where they were, you could negotiate, you could fight back. In the war against terror, you don't know who the enemy is, you can't defend against surprise bombings, you can't predict when and where they will happen, and you can't retaliate to protect yourself except to strike where you can create reform. Poverty is a large contributing factor to radicalism and by trying to reform countries ruled by corrupt facists, dictators, and inefficient theocracies, you can open the door to both educational reform and political and economic reform. You can encourage growth, capitalism, and prosperity so that people will have things worth living for, instead of causes to die for. The only real way to do that is to effect regime change by intervention or invasion.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Hack&Lube@Jul 7 2005, 11:42 PM

Yes it does, because their cause is simply the annhilation of all infidels (unfaithful) and every body is one count toward their twisted way of thinking. We aren't human beings in their eyes, and even speaking with some Muslims, they understand that their radical counterparts don't feel sympathy or guilt toward these attrocities.

I disagree. That is certainly what many of our leaders (religous and political) would like us to think. It's simplistic but amounts to nothing but propaganda.

While their tactics are barbaric and terrible, they do indeed have political goals other than just "killing infidels". If they didn't have political goals, they would just attack easy or soft targets. We'd be seeing attacks in unsuspecting places. Targets like NY, London, Madrid. the USS Cole, are not easy targets, but they will get more politcal notice than say Albany or Cardif even if they can get a high kill rate by attacking unsuspecting targets.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Jul 7 2005, 06:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Jul 7 2005, 06:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Hack&Lube@Jul 7 2005, 11:42 PM

Yes it does, because their cause is simply the annhilation of all infidels (unfaithful) and every body is one count toward their twisted way of thinking. We aren't human beings in their eyes, and even speaking with some Muslims, they understand that their radical counterparts don't feel sympathy or guilt toward these attrocities.

I disagree. That is certainly what many of our leaders (religous and political) would like us to think. It's simplistic but amounts to nothing but propaganda.

While their tactics are barbaric and terrible, they do indeed have political goals other than just "killing infidels". If they didn't have political goals, they would just attack easy or soft targets. We'd be seeing attacks in unsuspecting places. Targets like NY, London, Madrid. the USS Cole, are not easy targets, but they will get more politcal notice than say Albany or Cardif even if they can get a high kill rate by attacking unsuspecting targets. [/b][/quote]
Go read the fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996. "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places and then get back to me on that.

Certainly, they have individual goals and aims (one, to oustre or kill every infidel in Saudi Arabia) but the grand goal is the same. I'm sure if they had the resources and opportunity to attack random places like Albany and Cariff, they would do it, but they know they have a limited window so they make the most of their opportunities to garner the most attention. I've also personally spoken to muslim friends in other countries and they elucidated and agreed with much that I posted about their radical counterparts. As I said in my post, they agreed it was not about the numbers of deaths or the individuals, but the ideological effect of their targets. I don't really know how to translate that sentiment that I recieved from those people, I'm trying to say that it's not about morality or the individual, or even mass numbers of deaths...it's indeed the political/religious/ideological effect and people will die as part of that.

[Looger]

hmmmm....

terror attacks by al-quaeda, against two countries (england and spain) that joined in the bloodbath of iraq, after iraq was turned into the largest al-quaeda training base on the planet.

must be coincidence.

[Looger]

Originally posted by fotze@Jul 7 2005, 03:36 PM
How in the hell do you fight an enemy that welcomes death?

take away their support structure.

in other words, the EXACT opposite of the way america is doing it.

invading and occupying countries makes more militants and gives them large tracts of lawless zones to ply their skill.

and continued and baffling support for the nest of vipers known as the saudi royal family still strikes as #1 on my list.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by Looger+Jul 7 2005, 06:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Looger @ Jul 7 2005, 06:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-fotze@Jul 7 2005, 03:36 PM
How in the hell do you fight an enemy that welcomes death?

take away their support structure.

in other words, the EXACT opposite of the way america is doing it.

invading and occupying countries makes more militants and gives them large tracts of lawless zones to ply their skill.

and continued and baffling support for the nest of vipers known as the saudi royal family still strikes as #1 on my list. [/b][/quote]
Read my post, this has nothing to do with support structure.

The terrorists are indoctrinated by their education, politics, cultures, and regimes in which they live and their ranks are filled by pious youths who are not nothing else but the surpremacy of their religion and hatred of the west.

Invasion, regime change, liberation, and democracy, is about reforming and creating a structure by which people can support themselves and govern themselves. It's about bringing education to people. It's about bringing properity to people so they won't have poverty driving them to extremism.

[Looger]

Originally posted by Hack&Lube@Jul 8 2005, 01:16 AM
Read my post, this has nothing to do with support structure.

The terrorists are indoctrinated by their education, politics, cultures, and regimes in which they live and their ranks are filled by pious youths who are not nothing else but the surpremacy of their religion and hatred of the west.

Invasion, regime change, liberation, and democracy, is about reforming and creating a structure by which people can support themselves and govern themselves. It's about bringing education to people. It's about bringing properity to people so they won't have poverty driving them to extremism.

i wasn't responding to your post, but whatever

inading the correct countries might help.

iraq was not a base or supporter of al-quaeda, and saddam hussein has never been on their ramadan card list, even after paying families of palestinian suicide bombers.

the madrid and london bombings have more to do with the invasion of iraq then with the existing terrorist infrastructure.

but while we're on the subject of said infrastructure, why do countires like pakistan, saudi arabia, and indonesia keep popping up as america's allies in the war against terror, when these are the exact places where terrorist indoctrination takes place?

saudi arabia is mostly the financial support as opposed to a country like pakistan, which is tremendously poor and welcomes foreign money for schools etc. without asking questions and supports radical islamists as long as their interests are the same for the next 30 minutes or so.

deal harshly with these countries, and results will happen.

dela harshly with secular regimes that fight the islamists tooth and nail, and you get what we have here. saddam brutally opressed opposition to his reign, which included #####e extremists and sunni extremists. iraq is now lawless, with not enough troops to patrol and quell terror activity.

how again is iraq 'free'?

will iraq be free after repeated religious party administrations?

hosni mubarak said it best,

'if the whole middle east were a democracy tomorrow, who do the americans think would win, the democrats?'

these places are messed up but jumping in and attempting to fast-track them to suburbs and macdonald's etc. is not the answer. neither is supporting regimes and then invading and removing them. neither is using saddam's old thugs and torture specialists against the iraqi people again.

iraq's economy is a shambles, the terror level there has gone way up, casualties are mounting, there is no domestic security force that is effective at all, entire cities are out of government control for long periods of time, and it is all getting worse.

THAT is what breeds extremism.

[Eddie Bronze]

Thoughts are definitely with all the people effected by this tragedy. Things like this are so senseless, it's hard to know what to say really. I know my boss' father-in-law travelled through London today and I'm sure his wife and daughter were more than a bit scared when intially hearing about this. It's so sad that people just can't live together on this planet.

[icarus]

It turns out my friend's coworker's dad was killed today in the attacks.

[Ozy_Flame]

[quote]Originally posted by Looger@Jul 8 2005, 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube,Jul 8 2005, 01:16 AM

but while we're on the subject of said infrastructure, why do countires like pakistan, saudi arabia, and indonesia keep popping up as america's allies in the war against terror, when these are the exact places where terrorist indoctrination takes place?

saudi arabia is mostly the financial support as opposed to a country like pakistan, which is tremendously poor and welcomes foreign money for schools etc. without asking questions and supports radical islamists as long as their interests are the same for the next 30 minutes or so.

deal harshly with these countries, and results will happen.

dela harshly with secular regimes that fight the islamists tooth and nail, and you get what we have here. saddam brutally opressed opposition to his reign, which included #####e extremists and sunni extremists. iraq is now lawless, with not enough troops to patrol and quell terror activity.

I think after 9/11 is when Western countries really knew that conventional warfare is obsolete as we knew it. If we had forknowledge of the events that have unfolded by walking into a brutally oppressed dictatorship, would the United States have done it? The answer is probably yes since Bush obviously wanted to continue his dad's work, but I'm not sure there would be the hasty interevention that defined the War in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I guess what I'm saying is (in a comparative sense), what would we see if the United States and its allies invaded and brought down Kim Jong Il and North Korea? I think the real issue would be how to deal with a poverty-stricken country that harbors millions of people that have been fueled for years to hate America and the Western way of life. I think we're seeing a similar situation in Iraq, so any surprise of this notion on the part of the Bush administration or other would simply be dumbfounding.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Ozy_Flame@Jul 8 2005, 05:22 AM

I think after 9/11 is when Western countries really knew that conventional warfare is obsolete as we knew it. If we had forknowledge of the events that have unfolded by walking into a brutally oppressed dictatorship, would the United States have done it? The answer is probably yes since Bush obviously wanted to continue his dad's work, but I'm not sure there would be the hasty interevention that defined the War in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I guess what I'm saying is (in a comparative sense), what would we see if the United States and its allies invaded and brought down Kim Jong Il and North Korea? I think the real issue would be how to deal with a poverty-stricken country that harbors millions of people that have been fueled for years to hate America and the Western way of life. I think we're seeing a similar situation in Iraq, so any surprise of this notion on the part of the Bush administration or other would simply be dumbfounding.

Contrary to popular belief, Iraq was not a country where people were conditioned to hate the western way of life. In fact, it was one of the only Middle Eastern countries where the people had ample access to American TV and movies. They also had a thriving capitalist economy, and the 2nd highest percentage of educated females (next to Israel) for several years, until sanctions. I also read somewhere before that Saddam Hussein was a huge fan of the NFL and made it so that Iraqis could watch it. He was supposedly a New York Jets fan.

Of course, during sanctions there was more poverty and anti-Americanism, but I don't think it was anything like Saudi Arabia or even Kuwait. Right now though, after the invasion, it is probably higher than it has ever been in Iraq.

[Looger]

thanks FlamesAddiction, there seems to be a lot of disinformation on this thread.