Multiple Bomb Blasts in London

BCB

Condolences to all those affected in this terrible tragedy,an extremly sad day indeed..

mycroft

netwhizkid wrote:

I saw a programme on Sky tv recently which showed that no one has been left near the Pennslyvania carsh site in the USA yet. Cover up or what ? With the Republican's in the white house anything is possible.

Regards netwhizkid

You saw a program on a channel owned by the worlds largest media mogul and you're using this to fuel your paranoid fantasy?

Rigggggghhhhht...........

jank wrote:

May all those who died RIP*



*At least someone says it.

why Jank your cup of human kindness doth overflow.

kingsize wrote:

i agree with you mycroft but i was just making the point that nothing is 100% safe.

However, the point you're missing is the terrorist will always go for easier target. The G8 summit is essentially the most secure floating location in the world. The idea of an Al Q attack is really just farcial.

gandalf

netwhizkid wrote:

Right ye oh so, ! Still i reckon there was something fishy about todays events.

Regards netwhizkid

Yep some nutters decided to end innocents lives, is that fishy enough for you :rolleyes:

My heart goes out to those effected by this tragedy.

mike65

bug wrote:

It struck me that an eye witness said they saw many bodies on the ground, surely an expolsion of that size would have killed more than two people.
Im wondering if there were more killed and if any unaccounted for fatalities would include one of more of the terrorists....

At least 10 ppl died on the bus, that was the figure mentioned by a doctor from the British Medical Association which was meeting across the road from the bomb.

On a side note I don't often rate Chairman Livingstone but I thought he caught the mood just right.

I want to say one thing specifically to the world today. This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.

That isn’t an ideology, it isn’t even a perverted faith - it is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder and we know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other. I said yesterday to the International Olympic Committee, that the city of London is the greatest in the world, because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack. They will stand together in solidarity alongside those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved and that is why I’m proud to be the mayor of that city.

Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.

I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.

In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.

They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don’t want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.”

Mike.

AmenToThat

I agree with Ken that millions have gone to that city looking for help in hard times and found a friendly and hospitapal city and people. I count myself as one of them having had to move to London in 1988 because of the economic situation in Ireland.
What Ken had conveniently forgotten however is that much of London and indeed Britains wealth and freedoms won over the centruries was because the raped and pillaged their way across the globe including the middle east.
Today a small but growing section of middle east opinion turned the tables on London (Britain).
As usual its the innocents who have suffered just like those of Fallujah or Kandahar.
It is my opinion that GWB and Tony Blair are as culpable for the deaths of these innocents today, (some if whom may be Irish but hopefully not) as the Jihadi nuts that actually planted the bombs.

KnowItAll

Well I don't want to gloat about it but I did say that letting in all these asylum seekers is a bad idea.

People constantly complain that we should "let em all in" and complained that I said there were criminals being openly welcomed in by groups like residents against racism. Britian has it's own pack of do-gooders and look at where thats getting Britian now.

If I was in charge of Britian this wouldn't have happened!

Rew

KnowItAll wrote:

Well I don't want to gloat about it but I did say that letting in all these asylum seekers is a bad idea.

People constantly complain that we should "let em all in" and complained that I said there were criminals being openly welcomed in by groups like residents against racism. Britian has it's own pack of do-gooders and look at where thats getting Britian now.

If I was in charge of Britian this wouldn't have happened!

I hope your just a troll but...

If you were in charge it would have made no differance. Every one of the Sept the 11th hijackers were in the US legally. Same probably in this attack. They dont do illegal things that draw attention to them selfs. There is ittle you can do to stop a determined group from attacking, hence they have been talking in terms of "when" not "if" for a long time.

bonkey

KnowItAll wrote:

Well I don't want to gloat about it but I did say that letting in all these asylum seekers is a bad idea.

Now if only you could show that the two issues were related, you'd have somethign approaching a point there.

People constantly complain that we should "let em all in"

Sounds a bit fictional to me. I can't recall the last time I head anyone suggest we "let em all in", but I've heard plenty of people like yourself claim its a common enough stance.

You know, it amazes me how people can warp a tragedy like this into an "I told you so" about anything even before there's enough certainty about what happened to say clearly how many died and/or were injured.

All it shows is just how little evidence you need to lay blame at someone's feet, which in turn says pretty much everything which needs to be said about just how solid your underlying arguments are.

jc

Kingsize

"terrorists will always go for easier target"
having said that im sure it wouldve been easier for the IRA to have blown up a few tube trains on the day of the brighton hotel bombing.
so its not always true which is what i was saying but point taken
& it wasnt me who said that al queda were in scotland disguised as eco terrorists,
but publicity stunts, undercover journalists & cardboard boxes marked "bomb" notwithstanding ,inteligence & security have failed in the past - "spectaculars",such as political assasinations &/or attempts still happen.

AmenToThat

AmenToThat wrote:

What Ken had conveniently forgotten however is that much of London and indeed Britains wealth and freedoms won over the centruries was because the raped and pillaged their way across the globe including the middle east.

But wasn't all of that completely wiped out by the cost of the destruction done by WW2-ergo what Britain is today is a reflection of 1945-2005.

Today a small but growing section of middle east opinion turned the tables on London (Britain).

It might be best not to allow your support for the IRA campaign elsewhere on this board to colour your opinion on this.

As usual its the innocents who have suffered just like those of Fallujah or Kandahar.

Except this terrorism to quote (Ken Livingstone) was deliberately aimed at killing ordinary decent londoners first and foremost.

It is my opinion that GWB and Tony Blair are as culpable for the deaths of these innocents today, (some if whom may be Irish but hopefully not) as the Jihadi nuts that actually planted the bombs.

They share some responsibility but only in the same way that people that voted for them.
The comparison is flawed though to the extent that the nuts that did yesterdays murders will endeavour to hide themselves.They wont put themselves to a public vote.

FatherTed

FatherTed wrote:

Can you pass me some of what you're smoking please?

Weeks ban

civdef

once again, after an event like this, I find myself questioning how this is diiferent from any other day in, say, Baghdad?

It's not all that different at all really, for one thing, in case people haven't noticed - the bombs in Baghdad killing both Iraqis and foreigners (mostly the former) are being set off by the same sorts of jihadi lunatics who were probably responsible for yesterday's atrocities in London.



On another aspect - have a look at this article: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/articles/10329634?version=1

I sincerely hope these gentlemen and others like them are somewhere in the basement of Paddington police station today having a long talk about their views and acquaintances.

steviec

civdef wrote:

It's not all that different at all really, for one thing, in case people haven't noticed - the bombs in Baghdad killing both Iraqis and foreigners (mostly the former) are being set off by the same sorts of jihadi lunatics who were probably responsible for yesterday's atrocities in London.

Very true. I've heard people say 'it's no different to what the Brits are doing to Baghdad' so many times over the past 24 hours and it disgusts me that people can be so ignorant.

therecklessone

KnowItAll wrote:

Well I don't want to gloat about it but I did say that letting in all these asylum seekers is a bad idea.

People constantly complain that we should "let em all in" and complained that I said there were criminals being openly welcomed in by groups like residents against racism. Britian has it's own pack of do-gooders and look at where thats getting Britian now.

If I was in charge of Britian this wouldn't have happened!

Its taken a long time to come, but welcome to my ignore list.

I'd rather not read the rantings of those who see opportunity in the misery of others, who can't leave their prejudices aside for one day in the face of yesterday's slaughter. To borrow some words from Ken Livingstone, I'm sure the "ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old" who suffered yesterday appreciate your sentiments... :rolleyes:

dathi1

Very true. I've heard people say 'it's no different to what the Brits are doing to Baghdad' so many times over the past 24 hours and it disgusts me that people can be so ignorant.

The US army has recently levelled small villages in Quaim on the Syrian border killing innocent ordinary Iraqis. They generally put all civilian casualties down to insurgents. The city of Fallujah was bombed form the air on 2 occasions and the latest invasion levelled the place causing massive death tolls to innocent civilians. Every day American marines kill civilians in Iraq indiscriminately. The Jihadists are another piece in the jigsaw propagated by our close ally Mr Bush. Ahern doesn’t help our security situation by providing the logistics at Shannon to the killing fields in Iraq.
"Bring em on" has a good round up here

dearg_doom

Earthman wrote:

But wasn't all of that completely wiped out by the cost of the destruction done by WW2-ergo what Britain is today is a reflection of 1945-2005.

Britain, like the rest of the G8 countries has built its wealth since 1945 on the backs of these poorer countries.

When fuel is sold as BP, none of it comes from Britain, the only way it is 'British' Petroleum is that a British company owns the rights to foreign oil.

When tea is sold as Tetley's, that tea comes from India, if trade was really fair we'd be drinking Indian brands of tea.

When coffee is sold as Nescafe, that coffee is African, we don't get to purchase African brands of coffee because there are huge tarriffs imposed on foreign brands of coffee, Nescafe is a European company so it pays no tarriffs. Again if trade was really fair we'd be drinking African brands of coffee.


The real profit in all these is not in the growing, or exploration, it's in the selling you a small jar of it for a (relatively) huge price. non-Western companies are excluded from competing by these tarriffs.


Not to drag this into yet another MTF post, but this is where a lot of poorer countries' resentment of the West comes from, 'we' are profiting on their backs.

ionapaul

Did the bombers think / hope that these actions would result in a public outcry against British participation in the War on Terror or the occupation of Iraq? If so I think they will be terribly mistaken. Whatever about Iraq (doubt the British public's mind will waver from its negative view on this), surely public opinion will now harden against terrorists and will be more in favour of engaging those viewed responsible in their home countries? This action isn't likely to weaken Blair's (or Bush's for that matter) standing in his own country, quite the opposite. The Sun is already beating the jingoist drum for all it's worth, just wait for a front page 'BRING IT ON' at some stage!

dathi1

This action isn't likely to weaken Blair's (or Bush's for that matter) standing in his own country, quite the opposite.

It can go either way. The Blair spin machine and its tentacles in the BBC might achieve this. But hey...so they're going to go down the road of killing more innocent civilians by "engaging them in their home countries" ... the proof yesterday was in the pudding....hasn't worked.

dearg_doom

dearg_doom wrote:

When tea is sold as Tetley's, that tea comes from India, if trade was really fair we'd be drinking Indian brands of tea.

I take your point to an extent-except that the other side of the coin is that new and existing jobs are increasingly finding their way to lower wage poorer economies instead of to the G8 countries or us.

dathi1

dathi1 wrote:

The Blair spin machine and its tentacles in the BBC might achieve this.

I'd have though that going on the Hutton episode and the support for Greg Dyke that the Blair spin machine doesnt have too many tentacles on the BBC.

Christian_H

PHB wrote:

Britain hasn't been attacked by somebody from outside their country in quite some time, and they will have a firm response once the culprits are located.

What!? The UK are currently at WAR in IRAQ and Afhghnistan, but you wouldn't know it if you relied on the media, hers an example...

<i>The attacks -- which ministers said bore the hallmarks of the Islamic militant al Qaeda network -- were London's deadliest in peacetime and coincided with a summit of the Group of Eight (G8) top industrialised countries in Gleneagles, Scotland.</i>

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-08T105729Z_01_FOR816343_RTRUKOC_0_SECURITY-BRITAIN.xml

PEACETIME??????? I am puzzled, there is no piece time when you have nearly 10,000 of UK troops allied with 180,000 US tropps two foriegn campaigns....this is probably why most will see this as a totally unrelated incident if the media pussyfoot around and misled us with such irresponsible remarks.

dathi1

I'd have though that going on the Hutton episode and the support for Greg Dyke that the Blair spin machine doesnt have too many tentacles on the BBC.

I think after the multiple resignations from the BBC (who we're really proved right in the end) The new BBC board is less critical of new labour..I can't remember off hand but at least 2 of them are New labour supporters.

ionapaul

dathi1 wrote:

It can go either way. The Blair spin machine and its tentacles in the BBC might achieve this. But hey...so they're going to go down the road of killing more innocent civilians by "engaging them in their home countries" ... the proof yesterday was in the pudding....hasn't worked.

Yes, but the success of the attack could be spun by either leader (though it sounds more like a Bush-ism to me) into: We haven't been forceful enough with these people, nor engaged them enough in their home countries! The only way this type of argument is going to work (should the leaders in question argue this) is if the terrorists keep on slipping by the security aparatus and attacking London / Madrid / New York etc...

So did the perpetrators of the attack want to drain public support, such as exists, from the War on Terror? If so, in Britain's and America's case (Australia too, if they try it there) they will be disappointed.

jman0

Christian_H wrote:

PEACETIME??????? I am puzzled, there is no piece time when you have nearly 10,000 of UK troops allied with 180,000 US tropps two foriegn campaigns....this is probably why most will see this as a totally unrelated incident if the media pussyfoot around and misled us with such irresponsible remarks.

Good point. It's just another example of how the propaganda main stream media churn out gets believed.
Robert Fisk has a good article today:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles517.htm

dathi1

dathi1 wrote:

I think after the multiple resignations from the BBC (who we're really proved right in the end) The new BBC board is less critical of new labour..I can't remember off hand but at least 2 of them are New labour supporters.

That doesnt dumb down the likes of the hard time Blairs Govt often get on BBC's Newsnight or CH 4's 7pm ,both of which are publically funded.


On the attacks themselves,theres one extremely Blunt way of looking at it.
The Real IRA Atrocity managed to kill 29 or 30 shoppers in a totally undefended town of 20 or 30 K population whereas these al Queda bombers managed 50 odd in an unprotected subway/Bus system in a city of what 10 or 12 million.

Their attempt was miserable on two fronts then,they were comparatively much less lethal than the Real IRA whilst doing a dasterdly enough act to rise the UK public even more firmly than ever against them.

So they were a failure in my view on those two fronts, to be frank.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

...to rise the UK public even more firmly than ever against them.

Out of curiosity, what are you basing this on?
I believe that yes in a immediate after-math it may galvanise some support, but when that dies down people will be more vocally critical of the governments decision to wage war on the people of Iraq.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

growler

Earthman, i don't know if you can measure the effectiveness of a terror attack in casualties per se. Statistically they killed a minute percentage of Londoners true, and yes they could easily have killed many more if they had done a number of things differently, but that isn't the objective it's almost a side effect.
What yesterday was designed to do was to bring fundamentalist islamic terror to the UK ala 9/11 , it's most certainly achieved that, there are far fewer people on the streets here today than yesterday, the general mood is still nervous as the culprits have not been caught and the random nature of the attacks on a very vulnerable transport system will certainly change the way Londoners conduct their daily lives for some time to come.

Secondly, it will undoubtedly provoke some form of racist ill-informed backlash against the indigenous muslim population in the UK, build barriers, isolate a minority community, provoke more police seaches of turban and beard wearing citizens, inspire dawn raids and , inevitably , wrongful arrests, thus alienating a population inside the Uk who could become recruits to terror as a result (there are already enough of them here anyway it would seem).

Thirdly, it damages the UK's freedoms, it will undoubtedly provoke the introduction of security measures that will infringe on civil liberties.

Finally, it will have a direct economoic effect, people will be less likely to go to central London, travel on the tube and spend their money , toursits will think twice, the UK is already on the brink of crisis with debt / spending and the housing market, any further pressures on retail spending will result in job losses etc and will have a direct and measureable effect on the lives of the UK population.

While much of what I say is (obviously) speculation and rather pessimistic at that, I don't think for a second that the terrorists have "failed" I'm just very glad that the success did not cost more lives.

jman0

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Rubbish
For one - 3 years ago there was no Al'Q bombing in the UK; now after making a mess of things in both Afghanistan and Iraq, they've shaken-up a wasps nest and getting stung for it.
For 2- if we believe the line: that US and UK are in Iraq fighting the war on terror then thie bombing means that either the war on terror is failing, or worse, has backfired.