London bombings

Discussion in 'The OT' started by jonstad, Jul 7, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Thats the British "stiff upper lip". I salute them.
     
  2. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Unfortunately, terrorists continue to be all to effective without WMDs.
     
  3. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,892
    2,270
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Only when we let them. It's tomorrow. The sun has come up. Don't let the terrorists win by feeling terror.

    We do need to remain dilligent - but not afraid. London belongs to the English people, not to the terrorists. America belongs to the American people, not to the terrorists. Terrorists can only win when we let them scare us.

    JL
     
  4. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    My point is that with all our attention on WMDs, the terrorists continue to operate without using them.
     
  5. Sherlock

    Sherlock Legend

    124
    0
    Mar 24, 2002
    Colorado
    ...yet they're forced to operate on a much smaller scale. We're talking about tens dead and not tens of thousands.

    They'll "continue to operate" as long as they're performing oxygen/carbon dioxide exchange. We need to focus on the last portion of that sentence, IMNSHO.
     
  6. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Oh, baloney.
     
  7. AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    We need to explore new approaches to dealing with terrorism. What we're doing now squanders our time and resources and doesn't appear to be effective. If I lived in Copenhagen or Rome, I'd not feel very secure today.
     
  8. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    What new approach do you suggest?
     
  9. missileman

    missileman Legend/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    410
    0
    May 28, 2004
    In an open society, there is no such thing as complete security. I know of no way to make mass transit systems safe from terrorists. You can't outlaw packages, backpacks, metal objects, etc.

    The one thing no one will admit is that profiling may be the only solution.
     
  10. n8dagr8

    n8dagr8 Resident Rounder DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,837
    0
    Aug 14, 2004
    Just come out and say it. "Bush is responsible for this some how." You try to take back-handed stabs at the President every chance you get but I don't think anyone here is that stupid not to know what you are hinting at. Grow-up and stop trying to be so cute. It's one thing to joke around, it's another to constantly take stabs at an individual everytime you think you see an opportunity. So annoying.

    WMDs or not you will not stop terrorism. London, as stated earlier, is one of the most secure cities in the world and this still happened. Even if we had found WMD's this would have still happened and 9/11 would have still happened, and Madrid, and the next bombing, etc., etc. (getting my point?).You cannot stop these people. Only hope to minimize the incidences of occurrence and the effects of those occurs. Dealing with terrorist is a difficult fight. They abide by no rules and have no morals. They don't care who they kill and are some of the most determined people at causing chaos and destruction. This is not a war, in war there are generally rules.

    Shesh, look at Israel. This country is the birth place (and many people don't realize this) of many of the greatest modern technologies for fighting terrorsism; yet, this country still has bombings.

    Do you support terrorism? Do you think Saddam should still be in power? You seem to support womans rights (based on how proud you were at your daughter going to the NOW convention). Do you think woman should have rights? Do you believe in ethnic cleansing? Do you think we should kill off groups of people not of our heritage or religious affiliation?

    Saddam needed to be taken out of power. This country needs to be established as an indpendent democratic country. Terrorism is still a threat and this country still needs our help getting on its feet. I have plenty of friends and family over there and I do not support war but I do support our President and will always support the President. Did you support Clinton when he went to the Balkans? How about when he went into Somalia and we massacred over 1000 people? I do! We are the worlds superpower and we have a responsibility to aid the world.

    Do you think we should be giving billions of dollars in aid to the rest of the world? What is the difference between military aid vs financial aid? Iraq needs military assistance in establishing itself. This country is still "setting up shop" and needs help. Instead of being such a ninny try adding something positive to these threads.

    :rant

    Anyhow.....I hope that all is well for those involved and that London can get back to "business as usual".
     
  11. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,741
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Wait a minute here. With all the millions of people using the public transport, this last terrorist attack was way less effective than it could have been. Someone mentioned earlier that this proves a failure in the British anti-terrorism plan (or something like that). I disagree. I think it points to the success that less than 100 people were killed. Of course it's a tragedy, but all you have to do is look at Spain and see how many were killed there.

    It's not hard to image how much terror an organization can cause without much work. But ultimately, the Brits were able to limit the success of the bad guys.

    Let's take a look at an effectiveness timeline. Al Quaeda gave the US the best it could and unfortunately, did a good job at it. Terrorists did the best they could in Spain, and although they killed many and created havoc, killed way less than we endured. And now England. Al Quaeda (or whomever) did their best and killed even fewer people.

    So for those of you who expect 100% prevention of all terrorism, you're living in a dream world. We don't even have 100% prevention of crime in our country. We don't have 100% employment, education, health care or anyting else we'd love.

    No terrorism is acceptable. But the fact that (on the surface) it seems to be getting harder and harder for terrorists to be effective is exactly the direction we should be going.

    So let's give the Brits a little credit for not only taking this like they've taken terror in the past, but also for everything they've done to keep the death toll so relatively low; especially when you think of how bad it could have been.
     
  12. skidog

    skidog Godfather

    400
    0
    Dec 2, 2004
    Amen to that brother!
     
  13. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I have not made any secret of the fact that Bush has mishandled the situation. The war in Iraq was a mistake. I'm no supporter of Saddam, and its nice that he's gone, but we have made a huge mess of things that will take years to clean up, and I don't think Bush will ever be able to take the steps that are needed to do so.

    Iraq has taken huge amounts of resources away from our worldwide war on terror.

    Have you read your post? You yourself say that we can't stop these people. That the events in various places would still be taking place no matter what. Israel is this model of terror fighting ability, yet still gets hit by constant bombings. Are you getting it yet, what we are doing is not working. The human response of, "you put out my eye, so I'm going to kill you" does not work. The Bible says so, and Jesus said so. Is terrorism dead in Afghanistan? Nope, the Taliban seems to be having a resurgence. Is Iraq free of terrorism. Nope, they may have had a few terrorist connections while Saddam was in power, but they are now a hotbed for recruiting terrorists. About 100 Iraqis die as the result of terrorism every week. No wonder they wonder if this is really a big improvement over what they had pre-American occupation.

    You want a solution. I see only one way that this is going to be solved. You cannot defeat radical fundamentalist Muslims by trying to destroy Islam. You will only succeed in helping create more terrorists as people fight for their faith. We need to realized that there are many moderate Muslims who are as appalled by the violence as we are, and who see the actions of the terrorists, and those who deny rights to women, as a blasphemy to Islam. They believe Islam is a religion of peace, and that it emphasizes the rights of women. But we don't work with the clerics who believe this. One of the most important Shiite clerics in Iraq, who supported what we were trying to do in Iraq, was recently killed. The response of one of our Generals was, "Oh well, they are just killing each other." This was a huge loss. But we don't want to work with the Shiites, because we are afraid of another Shiite governed middle east nation. And we didn't want to work with the Sunnis because they used to be the ones in power and were allied with Saddam. We didn't want to work with the Bathists, because they were the party of Saddam. We didn't want to work with anyone who had been in the Iraqi military. There was no one left to work with that had the respect of anyone in Iraq. We need to realize that this is a very different culture than what we are used to. We have GOT to work with Muslim clerics who are willing to work with us. We may end up with a government that has more religious involvement than we want, but it is the only way to bring peace. The only way to battle the radical fundamentalists is to support and work with the non-radical fundamentalist clerics. They are the ones who will reach the hearts and minds of the Muslim population. If the clerics say to go vote, the people will. If the clerics say that God is calling for peace, not jihad, it will have far more influence than if George Bush tell them. We are not going to wipe out centuries of culture and faith in a few months. We need work with it, not try to destroy it.

    As far as joking around, a few weeks ago I let everyone know exactly how I felt and not very many people like that. I have been trying to keep my posts lighter and ad more humor lately, but you don't seem to like that either. How about if you just don't read my posts.
     
  14. Timco

    Timco Woof! DBSTalk Gold Club

    963
    0
    Jun 7, 2002
    You are assuming that there was no other way dealing with Iraq in the first place. There are many more leaders of countries that are as bad or worse than Saddam. Should we remove those too? North Korea, Iran, Syria and China all pose threats to the US. Should we attack them too, you know, just in case?

    The problem is that Saddam repressed the more extreme Muslims in Iraq. We supported him in the 80's for precisely that reason. Now we remove him and let the Shiites run the country? Does that make sense?
    So you whine about people not supporting a President who made a fundamental mistake and didn't have the foresight to see the consequences of his actions?
    Why the hell should I support him?
    Why do you?
     
  15. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    We now face a shiite Iran-Iraq military complex which may ultimately work against US interests
     
  16. n8dagr8

    n8dagr8 Resident Rounder DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,837
    0
    Aug 14, 2004
    Sorry that you were met with so much dislike (does that make sense? :confused: ) They don't come across as humorus; they come across as underhanded, which is even worse. Just come out and say it.

    I have no objections to you posting your opinions. We will agree and disagree with each other on many things. I learn a lot from reading your post and I hope you will continue to post. I would hate to have this place turn into a completely polarized forum.
     
  17. n8dagr8

    n8dagr8 Resident Rounder DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,837
    0
    Aug 14, 2004
    Now see, I completely agree with you on this. It is sad that they are killing each other and that our generals seem to be taking the stance that they [iraqis] are all the same. We have been burned in the past and I think that this is driving a lot of the decisions that are being made now.

    I never said I supported all the actions of the President, I said that I supported the President. I didn't care much for Clinton but I would still do what my country asked of me under his leadership. We do have the right to vote - I'm sorry you didn't win. You should take solice in the fact that presidents are only allowed to serve 2 terms. :D
     
  18. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,892
    2,270
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The more freedom one has, the more risk one is at.

    People in the US gave flight training to people illegally in the United States, rented apartments to them and sold plane tickets to them for domestic flights. Security in the US allowed those people to carry the weapons needed to the planes. And the lack of mental readyness in the US allowed us to be slow and hesitate in our response. Standard response before 9-11 for a hijack was to ask where they wanted to fly or what they wanted to give up the plane. Lack of response wasn't read as a high level danger sign that they didn't want anything but control of the plane.

    Spain lost more than people - they lost a level of democracy. The attack affected the outcome of an election. Spaniards GAVE IN to terrorism. In some sense, the terrorists won in Spain.

    England was ready. Years of conflict with the IRA has trained people in London to be more vigilent than we are in the US. Which means a move to smaller explosives (where the unattended bag isn't seen as much of a threat) or 'suicide' missions where the bag isn't unattended. And today the tube and buses are running - with a few service disruptions while they clean up.

    I'm glad to live in a country that is free - even if that freedom means someone can hurt me easier.

    JL
     
  19. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    "(T)he Brits were able to limit the success of the bad guys"???:scratchin

    From all reports so far, the "Brits" and everyone else were totally clueless about these "bad guys" and had just lowered their "threat level". London is the most surveilled major city on the planet with monitored cameras on nearly every lamppost. Britain has far fewer civil rights protections, allowing authorities much wider latitude in their investigations. And England has long historical experience with "terrorism" as far back as Guy Fawkes and running through the IRA to present day. Yet, against this backdrop, terrorists were able to plant and detonate four bombs on mass transit at rush hour.

    "(L)ess than 100 people were killed"???:scratch:

    If no one but the hijackers were killed on 9/11 and they only managed to bring down the twin towers and skid a plane into the Pentagon, would the attack have been much less significant? Would we, or the terrorists, have deemed it a failure?

    Number of deaths is largely irrelevant in the greater scheme of the terrorists. They certainly have no respect for human life and for them massive loss of life is a bonus, but I don't believe it's their main objective. It's kind of like their version of collateral damage. Their goal is acheived simply by carrying out the act and defying any security measures we think we have in place. The goal is to engender fear and insucurity in the public and shake confidence in government's ability to protect them. In a way the terrorists "lucked out" on 9/11 even though loss of life could have been much higher. Should we consider that more were not killed as a defeat for terrorism? Sort of a hollow victory ain't it?

    Sure, the people of London will persevere and go on with their lives. Just as those in New York and Madrid have done. And they would do so even if the loss of life had been much greater. That's what humans do when they are injured. They heal themselves and move on. But that doesn't mean there are no scars or diabilities remaining to deal with. The scars of 9/11 and 3/11 and 7/7 will persist long after Freedom Towers are built and train stations restored.

    The point is whatever we are doing to prevent these attacks isn't working. The mantra "the terrorists only have to be right one time and we have to be right all the time" is more than a tired cliche. And the terrorists understand this much better than we. Even if we "bust them" before they do their dirty deeds, which the British have been very successful at even previous to 9/11, the "busts" themselves are a victory of sorts for the terrorists. They consume vast amounts of manpower and resources and more importantly remind the public of the constant, on-going threat of terrorism. So truely, the terrorists need only be successful once in a while to be "doing their job". Our job, to prevent them 100% of the time, is impossible.

    What else can we do? That's a tough one. It would be easier if we could roll back the clock 50-60 years and never have supported the rise to power of the Shah or Saddam or the despots in Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately though, this is the bed we made and must lie in. But we don't even seem to want to get out of that bed even to change the sheets.

    Most in the Arab and Islamic world will decry the tactics of terrorist attacks but you'll probably not see a lot of sympathy flowing from them either, not when 4 bombs, 50 dead and hundreds injured is not an atypical day in Iraq or Afganistan reported on the news here as almost an afterthought.

    The threat of terrorism "in our streets" seems to be growing rather than diminishing. By our own actions the pool of terrorists seems to be growing. There seems to be a never ending supply of "jihadists" willing to take action against the west. And it matters little if they remote detonate bombs, fly planes into buildings, or even are inept enough to get "busted". The result is the same, fear and anxiety in our populations and knee-jerk military reaction against Arabs and Muslims regardless of their involvement with terrorist acts or terrorism in general.
     
  20. Roger

    Roger Banned User

    518
    0
    Aug 7, 2002
    Oh no, not another government bombing. I guess the Brits weren’t going along with their version of a national ID Cards so they needed to blow something up so they can ram all kinds of bad things through like when this country let China into the WTO 4 days after 9/11. Who stands to gain? Who gets power and money from the deal? Who has the motive? Surely not a bunch of punch-drunk Arabs who would bring the wrath of the British, USA, and the world against them to wipe out their fellow people.

    The MO points to the British shadow government because the NWO’s plan to enslave you all is to keep you in fear so you will accept their ID cards and all their controls mechanisms.


    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm
    London Underground Bombing 'Exercises' Took Place at Same Time as Real Attack
    Culpability cover scenario echoes 9/11 wargames

    “Power told the host that at the exact same time that the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life.

    The transcript is as follows.

    POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

    HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

    POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.”

    This is a cover in case they get caught by the local police and whatever before they can blow something up. If they’re caught they can call it off and claim it to be a drill which what was going on during 9/11.

    Terrorism expert says at least one person tipped off to London attacks
    http://www.wtvq.com/servlet/Satelli...3979&pagename=WTVQ/MGArticle/TVQ_BasicArticle

    “Terrorism expert Tommy Preston of Preston Global in Frankfort, Kentucky, said sources in the intelligence community reported that at least one person in London, England was warned of Thursday morning's terrorist attacks moments before the initial blast. Preston, citing sources in the intelligence community, said former Israeli Prime Minister and current Finance Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was in London this morning for an economic forum. "Just before the first blast, Netanyahu got a call from the Israeli Embassy telling him to stay in his hotel room. The hotel is located next to the subway station where the first attack occurred and he did stay put and shortly after that, there was the explosion," Preston said. “

    Stratfor Consulting Intelligence Agency: ’Israel Warned United Kingdom About Possible Attacks’
    http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6862

    So 4.5 million cameras didn’t help London which its people are the most watched in the world and at least 6k cover the subway. 5 Billion to one you’ll never see footage of it. And 5 to 1 the blame will be put on Iran because that’s who they want to invade next.
    The only way to know when a real terror attack by extremist like AL-CIA-da or some other group happens is when the government states that it wasn’t terrorism like TWA 800 or Amtrak in Arizona. It’s only terrorism when they want to invade another country or have power-grabbing police state powers they want to pass or implement.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements