Terror Bombing in London

[cbacon 0]

Sure.

 

Because there are sub-human terrorist scum out there wishing to do harm, and these people should be found and executed.

 

There ya' go.

 

We shouldn't try to understand these people or rationalise or justify what they did. Find them, kill them. That's all.

 

The 'sub-human terrorist scum' rhetoric is something that'd be expected out of a five year olds mouth. How on earth can you expect to stop terrorism if you don't address the root causes of it? Hardline nationalistc ideology at its finest. Your hopeless.

 

I doubt that, given that you do nothing but whine about Guantanamo even though one of the chief Democratic critics of the place backed down from his claim.

 

Of course you complained, that it wasn't paradise.

 

I could care less what some Demorcrat critic says. Until human rights organizations or the UN are allowed to visit (and why shouldn't they?) then i'll continue to remain skeptical.

[bob_barron 0]

The 'sub-human terrorist scum' rhetoric is something that'd be expected out of a five year olds mouth. How on earth can you expect to stop terrorism if you don't address the root causes of it?

 

What do you call people who kill 40 people in London? Guys who may have crossed the line?

 

Until human rights organizations or the UN are allowed to visit (and why shouldn't they?)

 

Because the UN is one to talk and it's not really any of their business.

 

I know I should put C-Bacon on ignore, but his posts are too funny to not want to read.

[cbacon 0]

What do you call people who kill 40 people in London? Guys who may have crossed the line?

 

I call them terrorists who wrongly target innocent civilians to acheive their own political means and they should be brought to justice as soon as possible.

 

Because the UN is one to talk and it's not really any of their business.

 

If there is nothing to hide at Guatanamo, then they'd allow international observers into their facilities. Simple as that.

[Zorin Industries 0]

I had a thought. Both 9/11 and the Madrid attacks were carried out by foreigners, but there is every chance that the London attack could have been carried out by British Nationals, what would be the fallout of that, especially if there were suicide bombers involved?

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Bob,

 

Putting C-Bacon on ignore was the best thing I did to begin enjoying this folder again...

[cbacon 0]

I had a thought. Both 9/11 and the Madrid attacks were carried out by foreigners, but there is every chance that the London attack could have been carried out by British Nationals, what would be the fallout of that, especially if there were suicide bombers involved?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That could very well be the case. I'd imagine the fallout would be the same though.

[bob_barron 0]

Bob,

 

Putting C-Bacon on ignore was the best thing I did to begin enjoying this folder again...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

But I like reading what he says, laughing at it, and then seeing someone refute it. Saying Bush's re-election was worse then 9/11 takes the cake though- that was awesome

[cbacon 0]

Meh, you can continue to hamper on what I said then if it makes you feel better about your lack of ability to say anything relevant or build concise argument based on facts. Given the context, what I said back then was a bit colorful and I probably should have re-worded it (although i'm sure I clarified myself in that thread). What it comes down to is that my belief that the re-election of Bush may prove to cost the loss of more lives than that of September 11. I need not say anymore on the issue. Ad hominen rebuttals are great though, eh?

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Terrorists don't give a damn who they kill, or who they target.

 

I would have thought that we learned our lesson about appeasement from WWII (which is exactly what C-Bacon advocates)

 

There's a reason why it's Churchill, not Chamberlain.

[Ripper 0]

Because the UN is one to talk and it's not really any of their business.

 

If there is nothing to hide at Guatanamo, then they'd allow international observers into their facilities. Simple as that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So you support the US going into Iraq for having Weapons of mass destruction then?

[King Cucaracha 0]

So C-Bacon, if Britain now bombs Iraq, they're bad? Despite the fact they have even MORE reason to do so than these terrorists had to bomb London (assuming Iraqis were responsible and stuff).

 

After all, that is what you were trying to do, right? Give these attacks some 'reasoning'.

[Justice 0]

Guys, you know if we just all put him on ignore, like everyone else in the world outside of the 'Noam Chomksy Book Club' and 'Commondreams.org', we'd cut down on crap tenfold.

 

Though, sadly, I do miss refuting him dozens of times.

[bob_barron 0]

Please refute him Justice. You always say what I want to say, but coming from you it sounds smart.

[Ripper 0]

Its not fun to ignore people. its more fun to argue.

[Justice 0]

Okay, one final time. Give me a little time, though.

[Justice 0]

Okay, here goes. Let's see if I still have it...

 

I'm perplexed as to why Justice believes that first world problems trump third world problems. Because about 30 dead every year is alot more dangerous than 50,000 every day?

 

Iraq isn't exactly 1st world at the moment, nor is Afganistan. Chechneya, anyone? How about the Phillipines? Terrorism isn't restricted to a class, but I'm sure that's too hard for someone like you to figure out.

 

While I don't mind Africa being top, having Global Warming up there is 1) Not a proven problem and we shouldn't try fixing something we have very little knowledge about 2) Something that can honestly put off because, well, how many people have you seen dead from Global Warming yet? I guess thousands of Iraqis killed in suicide bombings for electing their own government (Allah help us all!) and thousands of other terrorist attacks across the world doesn't constitute as much of a problem as one we know nothing about.

 

So what your saying is that they have no incentive and just commit these crimes because they are evil terrorists, nothing more?

 

They don't need any other incentive than to try to push an extremist message. They are fundamentalists: what more incentive do they need than 'We are doing the work of God'? Is that a reasonable incentive to you?

 

On Fisk: Doyle got most of the good points, but just to repeat: There is justification in that statement. Saying 'Well, we should have expected it and we damn well deserved it' is pretty much justifying an attack on innocent civilians.

 

The second quote does justify civilian deaths: By saying 'well, they're paying the price' is saying "Well, they're getting what they deserved'. When have you ever heard it used in a different context? It's made to imply punishment i.e. that they stole something and now they must pay it back. That's what that phrase means. That's just like saying, 'Well, the Spanish got their just desserts'. Welcome to the English Language. It has subtleties like tone and context, which you can't seem to master.

 

Let me re-iterate before others jump on me for this like last time: No act of terrorism is justifiable, whether it be coaltion bombs raining over Afghanistan or Iraq, insurgent bombs going off in the streets of Baghdad, or the atrocities committed yesterday in England. Whatever the motive, the wanton killing of innocents is not something I condone. It's absurd that I even have to spell this out for you. Reading comprehension. Learn it.

 

If no act of terrorism is justifiable, then stop putting up posts and articles that try to justify it. Do you ever wonder why everyone thinks you condone this stuff? It's not because 'No one gets you'. It's because we all get you, you just don't get what the fuck you are posting. You can't say "They are killing innocent civilians, they are killing people associated with the new government, which is understandable..." without justifying it in some way.

 

Perhaps the best way to say it, though, is this:

 

TIP: expressions of sympathy over the attacks and love for the nation will be a lot more convincing if you're not simultaneously saying BY GOD WE FUCKING DESERVED IT and posting a slew of largely irrelevant pseudofacts that purport to prove why.

 

Funny, all your so called 'evidence' is bolded text that you radically interpret as something else . But if thats what entails 'winning an argument' in your world, then hey, far be it for me to tell you otherwise. Congrats.

 

Bwuahahahahaha. Pot, kettle.

 

In addition to the other inane rationale you've spewed you went ahead and out did yourself a couple of posts up by stating that "they weren't Iraqis or Afghanis so it can't be about the war!". Yet another obvious example of your detatchment for reality, if you did any sort of research you'd realise attacks that are perpetrated by Islam Fundamentalists carry multiple incentives. I'm not going to bother replying to anything you post anymore until you at least do your research because you clearly don't know what your talking about as evident by your inability to come to terms with why terrorism occurs and you can't even put togehter a coherent or rational argument.

 

If you did any actual research on Islamic Fundamentalism, you'd realize that it's intensely xenophobic and calls for the death of any non-believers. Whatever other 'incentives' are secondary to the fact that they are all ancilliary to the fact that their doctrine of Islam tells them to kill anyone who doesn't believe in their God. Why are they ticked off at the US being in Saudi Arabia? It's not because we are infringing on their Sovereignty. It's because they are told to kill any people that believe differently than them.

 

Maybe you can explain exactly what these incredibly vague 'other incentives' are. Is it for the money, maybe? Or free healthcare? If you are going to say that they are 'multiple incentives', you'd better be prepared to fucking name a few.

 

. Most Islamic fundamentalists carry out attacks for reasons such as the belief that Palestinians are being oppressed in regards to the conflict with Isreal,

 

This is pure bullshit. Talk to some Palestinians and you'll quickly realize that they aren't very hot on other Arab nations because they receive so little help from them. 'Free Palestine' makes a very interesting rallying call, but the reality is that it's just that and nothing else. The Arab States care more about eliminating Israel than having a real Palestinian state. Otherwise they would have accepted the plan for both Israel and Palestine back in 1948.

 

the Western support of Middle Eastern dictorships,

 

More like 'Western Support of any government'. It isn't us who puts in place dictatorships, because if you look at any of the governments that have risen out of Arab society recently, you'd realize that they are ALL some form of dictatorship. Why replace an American Dictatorship in Iran for an Iranian Dictatorship?

 

It's not the style of government that they were angry about. It was the fact that we supported a government.

 

the military attacks that preceeded the 'war on terror'

 

Uh, okay. Are you talking about the Arab Wars on Israel? Or the Syrian terrorism in Lebanon that forced Israel and the US to go in there? Or maybe the Persian Gulf War and the attacks in 'No-Fly Zones'?

 

Actually, I think you are just talking about Bullshit. That's probably the most accurate description of that statement.

 

the abuse at Abu Ghraib

 

If that was the real reason here, why were they cutting off heads before that? Why were they bombing places before that? Seriously, Abu Ghraib is weak, especially compared to many of the abuses that the Arab World has made. Why not speaking out against those abuses? Once again, to the fundamentalist, it's simply another way of putting out an 'Arab vs. West' view of the world.

Edited July 8, 2005 by Justice

[Special K 0]

C-Bacon is really weird. His command of the English language is all over the board. He knows what ad hominem means, but not how to spell it, and completely misused the word 'hamper.'

 

How about that? And ad hominem argument about the phrase 'ad hominem.' I'm so meta.

 

I'm inclined to say we should just up and try to destroy their religion at this point.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I had a thought. Both 9/11 and the Madrid attacks were carried out by foreigners, but there is every chance that the London attack could have been carried out by British Nationals, what would be the fallout of that, especially if there were suicide bombers involved?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'd never hear about them being found out.

 

Neither C-Bacon's inept point-making or all the other people ganging up on him have it right: This isn't really a crime that made sense. There must have been a reason for all of this. Surely any terrorist organization worth its oats would know that the UK is #1A in the world so far as resolve against terrorism goes. This won't accomplish a pulling out of Iraq as it would with a weaker nation with not a lot to lose like Spain. This hasn't gotten anything done except emboldening a nation that until now was in the thick of fighting terrorism without even being attacked itself yet. Now that it has, their fighting spirit will become greater. Just picking up a history book shows that you don't fuck with the British, the same as you don't fuck with the Americans.

 

You could say that the G8 conference starting was the motive, but that was up in Scotland, not London. Also, with the agenda for the meeting being well-publicized and terrorism not being on the main docket, why would you want to draw attention to the issue? Do terrorists have beef with African aid and global warming? Now, had the attacks been a precursor to a later one that would take place when Blair returned to London, then this would make much more sense. Perhaps the two unexploded devices that were found were meant for that.

 

The whole thing doesn't add up if you make an attempt to understand things more than "they're evil, they do this kind of stuff." Their other attacks have all had a point to them, and I'll reiterate that the website posting that had "The Secret Organization of Al Queda in Europe" taking credit for the attacks was flawed, yet all over the news last night there was talk of al-Queda not necessarily being involved, but completely unrelated talk about them while footage of the day was shown with the Union Jack background. Even though it hasn't been explicitly stated that al-Queda or any other group did it for sure, I'll bet if you asked people out on the street they'd point to al-Queda as the perpetrators without any actual evidence, thanks to heavy implications on the news broadcasts that ran non-stop all day.

[Justice 0]

and Gutanamo Bay

 

When, uh, reliable proof actually surfaces.

 

and of course, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq

 

Yeah, the Baathists do have a reason there, I suppose. Damn us for trying to bring horrible Democracy to their corrupt Tolitarian Utopia!

 

They don't have to be from Afghanistan or Iraq, but it is seen as an attack on the Islamic world by the 'Zionist Crusaders".

 

Wow, because THAT'S a reasonable view.

 

So essentially, the foriegn policy of the US and other nations that follow suit

 

So, essentially, a bunch of crap propagated by Fundamentalists that often lacks truth or substance to it but is repeated so often that they begin to believe it's real? Since most of those claims are pretty much completely warped, untrue, or so minor in the scheme of things that it doesn't make up a logical or even near-understandable idea.

 

Oh yeah, and perhaps you should distinguish between "justifications" and "incentives". Because those are justifications, not incentives. Incentives are somethnig you can gain, those are all reasons why they did it.

 

If the group claiming responsibilty for the attacks (a loose al Qaeda faction in Europe) turn out to be the perputrators, then this is exactly what they said. Now, many individuals on this board will say that these claims are not justfiable, but i'm sure the majority can agree that this is what the terrorists believe. Obviously nobody here condones their actions and whether you belive their incentives to be justifiable or not is irrelevent for the sake of this argument. These are many of the reasons why terrorism happens and this is fact.

 

No, we can all see this is what the Terrorist believes. The problem is most of us are grown up to understand that most of what they say is crap, and you haven't gotten to that stage in your adult development yet.

 

Home or anywhere, most terrorists just don't go around randomly blowing things up. They've got an agenda based on some kind of revenge/hate, that usually wouldn't be there if there wasn't some kind of provocation.

 

Perceived injustice is more like it, fuelled by hate-filled dogma and hardline religious beliefs. Hardly anything that merits any sort of appologetics.

 

The 'sub-human terrorist scum' rhetoric is something that'd be expected out of a five year olds mouth. How on earth can you expect to stop terrorism if you don't address the root causes of it? Hardline nationalistc ideology at its finest. Your hopeless.

 

He's Canadian, you ass.

 

And trying to say that a terrorist, someone who actively plots the deaths of uninvolved and innocent civilians for a warped and deluded ideology, has any concept of humanity is childish.

 

I could care less what some Demorcrat critic says. Until human rights organizations or the UN are allowed to visit (and why shouldn't they?) then i'll continue to remain skeptical.

 

You could care less because it is the only thing that helps your argument. Of course, if they'd been touting the worst, you'd instantly be in support of their point of view.

 

And considering the makeup of the Human Rights Committee at time, do they really get to count?

 

And I think that's it. The rest is just whining about how people don't build stuff on 'facts' (Only use '' when C-Bacon is citing them), though of course he's liable to believe any manner of opinion article is an absolute truth and whatever most Muslim Extremists tout as 'wrongs' to them.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I wonder how Netanyahu was possibly called and told to stay in his hotel room after the first blast when the authorities were still reporting a power surge as the initial problem. The Israeli embassy in London is also not allowing any interviews about the bombings.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I had a thought. Both 9/11 and the Madrid attacks were carried out by foreigners, but there is every chance that the London attack could have been carried out by British Nationals, what would be the fallout of that, especially if there were suicide bombers involved?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to one of the news conferences the London police gave, they think that the bomber on the bus wasn't a suicide bomber, but that his bomb merely went off too soon. The bus was headed for one of the train stations over there, and they feel that that was the intended target, not the bus itself.

 

As for if the bombers turn out to be British Nationals, then immigration will promptly become the hot political issue.

[Justice 0]

A letter in the London News Review, brought to my attention on the SWF board by MikeofEvil.

 

What the fuck do you think you're doing?

 

This is London. We've dealt with your sort before. You don't try and pull this on us.

 

Do you have any idea how many times our city has been attacked? Whatever you're trying to do, it's not going to work.

 

All you've done is end some of our lives, and ruin some more. How is that going to help you? You don't get rewarded for this kind of crap.

 

And if, as your MO indicates, you're an al-Qaeda group, then you're out of your tiny minds.

 

Because if this is a message to Tony Blair, we've got news for you. We don't much like our government ourselves, or what they do in our name. But, listen very clearly. We'll deal with that ourselves. We're London, and we've got our own way of doing things, and it doesn't involve tossing bombs around where innocent people are going about their lives.

 

And that's because we're better than you. Everyone is better than you. Our city works. We rather like it. And we're going to go about our lives. We're going to take care of the lives you ruined. And then we're going to work. And we're going down the pub.

 

So you can pack up your bombs, put them in your arseholes, and get the fuck out of our city.

 

And the other one, from a blogger.

 

Many years ago I was working in The City and there were two events that made travel into work almost impossible.

 

The first was a series of storms that brought down power lines, blocked train routes and so on. Not surprisingly, the place was empty the next day. Why bother to struggle through?

 

The other event was an IRA bomb which caused massive damage and loss of life. Trains were disrupted, travel to work the next day was horribly difficult and yet there were more people at work than on a normal day. There was no co-ordination to this, no instructions went out, but it appeared that people were crawling off their sick beds in order to be there at work the next day, thrusting their mewling and pewling infants into the arms of anyone at all so that they could be there.

 

Yes, we’ll take an excuse for a day off, throw a sickie. But you threaten us, try to kill us? Kill and injure some of us?

 

Fuck you, sunshine.

 

We’ll not be having that.

Edited July 9, 2005 by Justice

[Jingus 0]

I applaud the Brits wholeheartedly. I have tremendous respect for that nation and its people. And they've still got one of the better militaries in the world. Islamic terrorists couldn't have picked a worse country to piss off. (Well, besides the one they already did.) Al-Queda are relative n00bs at this terrorist thing, having only done it since the 80's in Afghanistan; the UK has been dealing with other nations attacking it since the time of the Vikings, and usually done pretty damn well.

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

London Bombs Likely Simple and Homemade

LONDON - The bombs that destroyed three London Underground cars and a double-decker bus each weighed less than 10 pounds and could be carried in a backpack, police said Friday. Police said the bodies of 49 people had been recovered, but warned that the number of deaths would rise.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

An explosives expert said they were likely crude homemade devices set off with a simple timer. Experts say Thursday's attacks had all the hallmarks of an al-Qaida strike, and authorities were gathering evidence on the ground and investigating a purported claim of responsibility.

 

Sir Ian Blair, commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police, said no arrests had been made but officials have "lots and lots" of leads.

 

Home Secretary Charles Clarke, the Cabinet minister responsible for law and order, said it was a "strong possibility" that al-Qaida or a sympathetic group had carried out the attack.

 

In Washington, current and former American counterterrorism officials said they were taking seriously an Internet claim by a little-known group calling itself The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe that it staged the attacks.

 

A U.S. law enforcement official said authorities had vague information from Abu Farraj al-Libbi, reputedly No. 3 in the al-Qaida terror network, that al-Qaida was seeking to mount an attack similar to the 2004 train bombings in Madrid.

 

Al-Libbi was arrested by Pakistani agents on May 2. The information contained no specifics about location or timing, the official said.

 

The bombs were probably made from simple, relatively easy-to-obtain plastic explosives, not the higher-grade military plastics like Semtex that would have killed far more people, said Andy Oppenheimer, a weapons expert who consults for Jane's Information Group.

 

"Any crook with ready cash could obtain this stuff if they knew where to look for it," said Alex Standish, the editor of Jane's Intelligence Digest.

 

Plastic explosives are readily available on the black market in the Czech Republic and other central and eastern European countries or through the Russian mafia, Standish said. Large amounts of plastic explosives untagged by the chemical markers that enable dogs to detect it are missing from Czech stocks, he added.

 

Police said the four bombs that hit the London transportation network on Thursday weighed less than 10 pounds each, small enough to be carried in a backpack. They were left on the floor of the Underground trains and either a seat or the floor of the No. 30 bus that was ripped apart in the Bloomsbury neighborhood, said Assistant Police Commissioner Andy Hayman.

 

Ten pounds is a relatively small bomb, although a blast's power depends more on the type of explosive than the amount. The 10 bombs that killed 191 people on commuter trains in Madrid, Spain last year averaged 22 pounds each; the bombs that killed 33 bystanders and 12 suicide attackers at five targets in Casablanca, Morocco, two years ago were 18 to 22 pounds each.

 

Hayman said investigators had so far obtained little detailed forensic information on the bombs. Their investigation has been hindered by the inaccessibility of one of the wrecked trains, 70 feet below street level, he said.

 

Bodies were still trapped in the mangled Picadilly line train between theKing's Cross and Russell Square stations, the site where at least 21 people were killed.

 

Rescuers got all the survivors out in the hours after the blast but decided not to go back to remove the dead or recover evidence until they can shore up the tunnel, which sustained structural damage and may be unsafe, said Blair, the police commissioner.

 

Oppenheimer said the bombers likely used a fairly basic timer that would have been set a half hour or less in advance. More sophisticated detonators like those the    Irish Republican Army has used can give far longer lead times, up to several days.

 

"You wouldn't need very advanced knowledge to make one of these," Oppenheimer said.

 

Law enforcement officials declined to respond to questions about a U.S. official's statement that evidence indicating timers were used was found in the debris. London police also played down the possibility the devices were detonated by remote control using cell phones.

 

Some experts believe the bomber on the double-decker bus may have blundered, blowing up the wrong target and accidentally killing himself. Media reports have quoted an witness who got off the crowded bus just before it exploded as saying he saw an agitated man in his 20s fiddling anxiously with something in his bag.

 

"Everybody is standing face-to-face, and this guy kept dipping into this bag," Richard Jones, 61, of Berkshire, west of London, told the British Broadcasting Corp.

 

Standish said the man may have intended to leave his bomb on the subway but was unable to board because his co-conspirators already had shut the system down. He may have gotten on a bus instead and detonated the package sooner than he meant to, killing himself.

 

Police say there is no indication the attackers were suicide bombers, but they have not ruled out the possibility.

 

Al-Qaida is a different terror network now than it was in 2001, when leaders commanded a more hierarchical, well-organized collection of cells.

 

Those responsible for the London attacks may have been British citizens with no formal terrorism training or direct links to al-Qaida commanders, Standish said.

 

"I suspect that this is a low-level, possibly locally recruited al-Qaida cell," he said.

 

"Al-Qaida is now an ideology. It's moved beyond being a structural organization," he said. "All one has to do to form an al-Qaida cell is to get together with a group of like-minded individuals and say, 'We are going to start an al-Qaida cell.' ... If one is prepared to carry out an attack in the name of al-Qaida, one becomes an al-Qaida operative."

 

That kind of loose grouping is far harder to battle than a more tightly knit group, Standish said.

 

He said the bombers' choice of targets reflected a lack of knowledge about the mechanics of explosions that suggests they were not highly trained or experienced.

 

Bombing a tightly enclosed space like an Underground train is likely to kill fewer people than targeting a more open space where debris can fly through the air and devastate a wider area, he said. In a crowded Tube train, the primary force of a blast is likely to be absorbed by a small number of people around the explosion and by the train itself, he said.

 

In Baghdad, the chief government spokesman said Friday that Islamic extremists have been using    Iraq as a planning center for attacks around the world since losing    Afghanistan as their base in 2001.

 

Speaking about the London attacks, Laith Kubba said "we don't know exactly who carried out these acts but it is clear that these networks used to be in Afghanistan and now they work in Iraq."

 

The spokesman said that insurgents in Iraq and those who carried out the London attacks "are from the same network. There are different groups in the world, but they all follow the same school."

 

Britain is home to a number of known militants whom police will likely scrutinize as they seek clues to the perpetrators' identities.

 

Among them is Mohamed Guerbouzi, convicted in absentia in his native Morocco in 2003 and sentenced to 20 years in prison in connection with the Casablanca bombings.

 

French officials consider Guerbouzi, who has British and Moroccan nationality, to be the founder and principal recruiter of the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group.

 

Morocco has sought his extradition but Britain has not complied, French judicial officials say.

 

___

 

Associated Press writers Mark Sherman in Washington, Verena von Derschau in Paris and Bassem Mroue in Baghdad, Iraq, contributed to this report.

 

Scary stuff. What a fucking world we live in.

[MrRant 0]

All I can say is I sure hope you guys don't have the same kinds of laws and shit passed there after your attack like we had here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which law has personally inconvienced you?

[MrRant 0]

I had a thought. Both 9/11 and the Madrid attacks were carried out by foreigners, but there is every chance that the London attack could have been carried out by British Nationals, what would be the fallout of that, especially if there were suicide bombers involved?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'd never hear about them being found out.

 

Neither C-Bacon's inept point-making or all the other people ganging up on him have it right: This isn't really a crime that made sense. There must have been a reason for all of this. Surely any terrorist organization worth its oats would know that the UK is #1A in the world so far as resolve against terrorism goes. This won't accomplish a pulling out of Iraq as it would with a weaker nation with not a lot to lose like Spain. This hasn't gotten anything done except emboldening a nation that until now was in the thick of fighting terrorism without even being attacked itself yet. Now that it has, their fighting spirit will become greater. Just picking up a history book shows that you don't fuck with the British, the same as you don't fuck with the Americans.

 

You could say that the G8 conference starting was the motive, but that was up in Scotland, not London. Also, with the agenda for the meeting being well-publicized and terrorism not being on the main docket, why would you want to draw attention to the issue? Do terrorists have beef with African aid and global warming? Now, had the attacks been a precursor to a later one that would take place when Blair returned to London, then this would make much more sense. Perhaps the two unexploded devices that were found were meant for that.

 

The whole thing doesn't add up if you make an attempt to understand things more than "they're evil, they do this kind of stuff." Their other attacks have all had a point to them, and I'll reiterate that the website posting that had "The Secret Organization of Al Queda in Europe" taking credit for the attacks was flawed, yet all over the news last night there was talk of al-Queda not necessarily being involved, but completely unrelated talk about them while footage of the day was shown with the Union Jack background. Even though it hasn't been explicitly stated that al-Queda or any other group did it for sure, I'll bet if you asked people out on the street they'd point to al-Queda as the perpetrators without any actual evidence, thanks to heavy implications on the news broadcasts that ran non-stop all day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Clearly Bush ordered these attacks so as to draw Britain even farther into the fight against terrorism because he feared they would leave after Blair does.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

All I can say is I sure hope you guys don't have the same kinds of laws and shit passed there after your attack like we had here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which law has personally inconvienced you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1. Not being able to carry fuckin' fingernail clippers on an airplane.

 

2. Government spooks actively perusing through my reading and viewing habits.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I didn't say that at all, I'm suggesting that perhaps (gasp) someone that wasn't in an Islamic group did it. The western hemisphere has stayed pretty sheltered from it, but terrorism and bombings by natives in other nations isn't a foreign thing. Everyone's jumping the gun by pointing at an uncharacteristic note by something with "al Queda" slapped on it.

[Art Sandusky 0]

All I can say is I sure hope you guys don't have the same kinds of laws and shit passed there after your attack like we had here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which law has personally inconvienced you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a dangerous attitude towards the subject.

[King Cucaracha 0]

All I can say is I sure hope you guys don't have the same kinds of laws and shit passed there after your attack like we had here.

 

Which law has personally inconvienced you?

 

1. Not being able to carry fuckin' fingernail clippers on an airplane.

 

Just chew them. If you don't chew your fingernails, then the terrorists win.

 

Those letters Justice posted are fantastic, by the way. Like Jingus said, we've dealt with stronger enemies than these terrorists and haven't backed down, we're not going to do it here and now.