Six Bomb Blasts Around Central London 3468
M3rk1n_Muffl3y writes "There were six explosions around London this morning. Information is still emerging, but looks like there were bombs detonated on a bus near Russel Square and several others on the Underground around the City and King's Cross. It's been difficult to reach people on their mobiles."
Re:News just in.... (Score:0, Interesting)
Mobile network switched off... (Score:1, Interesting)
Mobiles (Score:5, Interesting)
This is apparently part of the government's planned response to this sort of situation (the bombs in Madrid were triggered by mobile phone).
The Blitz Comes to London (Score:3, Interesting)
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/07/blitz
Jobs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Terrible. (Score:4, Interesting)
"In any case, we should bomb Mecca every time something like this happens."
The capital of Saudi Arabia is Riyadh. All you're proposing is the random killing of random Muslism, who may or may not be Saudi (or even Arab), considering Mecca's status as a pilgrimage destination. Way to take the high road there.
G8 Protestors should be ashamed (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:Terrible. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's horrendous, but bombing random developing-world nations is probably not any sort of solution...
Re:More details (Score:1, Interesting)
Watch the Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More details (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:First Post (Score:3, Interesting)
Source [sky.com]
The statements come from people in BBC, not FOX.
Re:Fucking Animals (Score:2, Interesting)
At least we're not likely to use this as an excuse to go bombing the crap out of some country to get control of its oil reserves under the pretence of securing democracy and freedom.
How long before people realise that its this entire arrogant western attitude which caused all this in the first place?
Chill out people: reacting the way the USA reacted to 911 is playing into their hands and doing exactly what they want you to do!
Re:Responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
Although an Al Qaeda link should never be ruled out, they don't have a record of claiming responsibility directly after attacks. A tape that comfirmed the link between Osama's network and "9/11" surfaced months later, while the first days after the Madrid bombings ETA was falsely blamed.
Isn't it peculiar that this time asian sources have Al Qaeda claim responsibility *minutes* after the events occured?
--
All extremists should be taken out and shot
Re:More details (Score:3, Interesting)
From London (Score:4, Interesting)
The news has slowly unfurled over the course of the morning. The first incident to the east of the centre was at 9:00. Up until 10:30, the news were still claiming the problems were caused by the power supply. When the first bus was reported this obviously started to break down but it was another 20 minutes or so before the news confirmed that he problems were down to terrorists. Additional spots have been appearing on the map over the course of the morning and it's at seven at the moment.
Outside the streets are very empty, both of cars and pedestrians. I think almost everyone who can has stayed in their offices. Many shops have closed up and gone home so there is an eery feeling walking about the streets.
I've not yet visited any of the incident sites and, from what I've heard, they've now been cordened off.
Getting home will be very difficult with the mass transport systems out of action. During previous strike action the streets get very busy and I fear for will happen if the terrorists have planned anything else when the streets are busy at rush hour this evening.
Re:Mobile Phones: No contact. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Mobiles (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no way they'd shut emergency response people out of the network, so at most it was shut to normal users. However I'm guessing the it was hard to make calls because (1) everyone was trying to use the network at once, and (2) emergency services get priority (and rightly so). Networks are built to withstand normal peak usage, and simply can't scale to everyone calling everyone they know in a short time.
Re:First Post (Score:5, Interesting)
Anarchists also aren't organised enough. Violence by these groups tends to be more along the lines of throwing bricks. Of course, only a tiny proportion of the anti-globalisation movement is violent.
Interesting analysis (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cellphone system near breakdown (Score:3, Interesting)
deal with the social circumstances that cause bin Laden, not the man himself.
C.D. Thomson (Score:3, Interesting)
A Note of Solidarity (Score:5, Interesting)
the time. The company had installed a really large set of screens at
the end of the floor to keep traders up to current events. Various
financial news channels would be on at any given point in time, and on
slow days, the occasional sporting event.
Jeff, a new hire along with me, stopped by my desk. He said, you have
to see this, a plane just hit the World Trade Center. So we went back
to the floor and stared at dumb amazement at the big screen, and
watched the whole sorry show. I remember talking at that time with
other people. All of is new it was an act of war, but some of us
realized that our country would never be the same again. We looked at
other as the buildings collapsed, and said, "well, we are a police
state now." Despite all the platitudes of life moving on as normal, we
all knew in some way that our country as we knew it was gone.
There were some rumours of planes also targetted buildings in
Philadelphia, where my mother worked. There was of course no way to
get in touch with anyone. All the phones were jammed and the main web
sites were blocked because they were being pounded on so much. I
managed to do as much work as I could, as if I could blot it out. They
let us go early that day. Many of the traders had collegues in New
York.
When I came home that day my wife had found the largest American flag
we had and hung it up. She had actually been rather opposed to hanging
up American flags. One of those liberals that thought patriotism was
tacky, she wrote in her then journal. "Today I know what it means to
be American." And then, we turned the TV off and the radio off. I
couldn't watch it any more. I didn't want to think about it. But
later on that evening I had occasion to go the store and I turned on
NPR for a quick update.
There was the BBC, and with typical British class and elegance they
dispatched with all the usual platitudes and did the simple thing.
They conjured up an orchestra which played the Star Spangled Banner.
And that time was the only time I actually cried at all over 9/11. And
I will never forget that moment of solidarity with the British people,
will never forget that in more than my lifetime, from World War II, the
Cold War, and now in Iraq, the cause of freedom, freedom of the seas,
freedom from tyranny, freedom of the press, and freedom of trade, has
been a joint American and British project. For generations now, the
United States has never had a better friend or more noble ally than the
United Kingdom.
I hope that casualties are few in London. I hope that the number of
people that perished are small. I hope that the wounded will recover.
I hope that your nation does not go as crazy as ours did. The world
needs the voice of British reason to counter American romance. Today
I'm going to go buy a Union Jack and hang it up on my house. Your
former colonies are with you. We are all British today.
Re:From London (Score:3, Interesting)
the problems were caused by the power supply.
It might be the new Inspector Sands [google.co.uk] which was used as a coded message to prevent panic.
Re:Not just about Iraq (Score:2, Interesting)
9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Bin Laden claims 9/11 was because he wanted US forces out of Saudi Arabia.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm still wondering whether it's some IRA faction, personally. These don't seem to have been really big bombs - we're seeing lots of wounded, not many dead. Jihadists tend to go for the big bodycount, while the Irish terrorists always preferred to cause disruption wherever possible. Although comparatively few are known dead - fewer than, say, Omagh, and so far nowhere near the bombings in Madrid or Bali - it has ruined all business in London today, and possibly tomorrow.
One final puzzle: why didn't they do this yesterday? Bombing the Tube yesterday morning would surely have scuppered the Olympic bid...
Canary Wharf shooting? (Score:3, Interesting)
The news sites aren't bringing anything up on this. Does anyone have any more info?
Re:G8 Protestors should be ashamed (Score:2, Interesting)
I appreciate that the assholes doing the bombing may have seen this as an opportunity, but that is down to them and apportioning any blame to people following the democratic way is disgusting.
And buses too (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:First Post (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wow. (Score:2, Interesting)
It is regrettable that these things happen *at all*, there is just no excuse or justification for taking human lives for any motive.
However upon hearing the latest developments, it stroke me as strange that the attack was not more aggresive in nature. I worked in "the city" (the financial district) for a year, and it was a very widespread impression that if London was to be attacked, the subway would be a primary target. I remember seeing Picadilly ( a major line) being closed for simulated attack responses from Biological weapons or other means that would require a complete isolation of the train.
Having said that, I still think that this type of disruption was much less of what not only authorities were expecting, but maybe even Londoners. Perharps some of them can share their thoughts on this.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with this statement, but my belief goes a little further. This "terror attack" is a major part in the global attack on freedom/privacy, led by the United States of Corporations. Bit by bit we are taken from it.
I hope people will listen very closely when they hear them announce the counter measurements that will result from these attacks.
Problem -> Reaction -> Solution
or is it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Doesn't make sense coming from al Qaeda...
not that we can be sure it's them...
I was on my way to work when it happened (Score:5, Interesting)
The stop that the signs directed me to was on a road that the police were cordoning off as I arrived. I saw several police cars and fire engines, and a group of dazed-looking people being escorted away from some buses, clutching bits of paper. (I'm assuming that the paper was for taking statements)
Given that it was a reasonably nice day at the time, I decided to walk the rest of the way. On the journey (which took about an hour or so) I heard lots of sirens and helicopters, and saw quite a few police cars and fire engines (including one with "COMMAND UNIT" painted on the side). I also saw an unmarked car driven by someone not in uniform, tearing along with siren blaring and a stick-on light flashing. That gave me pause; the plain-clothes guys don't get called out for "power surges", even if they've caused a transformer or two to blow.
Now, everything's pretty quiet. The 'phone networks are getting back to normal, although for a while it was hard to get through - it took me a couple of dozen tries to get through to my girlfriend and parents (who knew more about what was going on than I did, walking through central London), but nothing that you wouldn't expect from everyone calling everyone else (eg as they do on NYE).
Apart from that, and the complete shut down of transport in central London (including the whole of hte Tube network), everything is more or less as it is any other day. The streets are a little quieter, and some shops are closed, but apart from that you could be forgiven for not realising that anything had happened. That won't be the case in the areas directly affected, but here in the West End, it's almost like any other day.
The news is a different story, of course, and there are rumours and counter rumours flying around like crazy. Talk of people being shot by police, suicide bombers in Canary Wharf (lots of financial companies there), more bombs being found, uncomfirmed reports of it being a terrorist attack; it's hard to tell what's true and what isn't.
(As I type this, I can hear more sirens out in the streets below)
My heart goes out to those that were caught up in it, and the people who have lost loved ones or who simply can't contact them to find out.
Re:Would have happened anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
You're frothing at the mouth. Here, have a napkin.
Invading Afghanistan was a good thing, because it got rid of a bunch of murderous primitive fuckwits, regardless of whose fault it is that they were in power in the first place.
Invading Iraq would have been a good thing, if it had been done right, without lying about the reasons for it, because it got rid of a bunch of murderous primitive fuckwits, regardless of whose fault it is that they were in power in the first place.
"Getting rid of primitive, murderous fuckwits" is always a Good Thing (tm); it's just too bad nobody had the balls to do it in places like Rwanda and Liberia.
Yes, the "war on terror" is stupid. Yes, "mission accomplished" was stupid. Don't put words in peoples' mouths, and think before you post.
The spread of news.... (Score:3, Interesting)
By far the most informative site has been Slashdot -- whether from eyewitnesses posting their accounts or simply aggregating news from sources world wide. And the analysis in several of the posts has been at least as good as any of the major sources.
I was just in London a few months ago -- I think I visited every Tube station mentioned. Just know that our thoughts are most definitely with you.
Re:More details (Score:5, Interesting)
Does your fear arise from an unmet expectation that the legislation would prevent terrorism, or from an anticipation of even worse measures now that a continuing vulnerability has been demonstrated?
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately (Score:3, Interesting)
James
Adama (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Terrible. (Score:1, Interesting)
When the focus finally was on development (Score:3, Interesting)
Now these muslims (if that's what they are) are trying to steer the global agenda back to the issue of terrorism rather than a positive one of development and global environmental awareness.
--
virve
Re:7 bombs (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Someone from the UK (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:2, Interesting)
But, it does confirm that we should have gone into Pak. to get Osama and Saudia Arabia for the kooky clerics preaching terrorism against us.
But, instead there was that Personal Vendetta Bush needed to clear up, plus, install US oil companies in Iraq.
We could have tried to cut our energy consumption and not needed Arabic oil. Then we could have gone after the Arabian kooks.
Re:Clever (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd be interested if anyone else with a knowledge of London can fathom the choice of locations... * Bank, Liverpool St., Moorgate are the heart of the financial district * Edgware Road is a strange choice - it's known as a centre for the Lebanese community * Russell Square is another weird choice choice - it's where lots of students live. And not a lot else...
Re:Terrible. (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny, that.
Edgware Road (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Our thoughts & prayers go out to the UK (Score:2, Interesting)
The fundamentalist believes that we believe in nothing. In his world-view, he has his absolute certainties, while we are sunk in sybaritic indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know that he is wrong. We must agree on what matters: kissing in public places, bacon sandwiches, disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature, generosity, water, a more equitable distribution of the world's resources, movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty, love. These will be our weapons. Not by making war but by the unafraid way we choose to live shall we defeat them.
How to defeat terrorism? Don't be terrorized. Don't let fear rule your life. Even if you are scared.
Re:Not just about Iraq (Score:4, Interesting)
In Weehawken on 9/11 and now in London today ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Had a few too many drinks last night to celebrate the Olympic win.
I was on the Victoria line this morning going from Highbury down to Green Park to have a coffee before my meeting near Hyde Park corner. Thought it strange that Kings X was closed and the power flickering.
Didn't know what was going on at Green Park. Walked along Piccadilly @ 9.15 and wondered why so many damn people were walking about and the buses jammed.
People on the street here in central London seem in good spirits. Everyone's sending texts to friends and family. Called my mum in South Carolina.
The sound of sirens has been pervasive all morning and into the afternoon. Now I'm contemplating a loooong walk back to Islington.
Proud to be a former New Yorker and very proud of the reaction of the PM, too. (GWB was a bit cringeworthy, to be honest)
Re:You're an embarrassment to your country. (Score:3, Interesting)
Furthermore, stop referencing concepts like 'racism', 'sexism' or any other 'ism' because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
I know you are French and are thus the target of the original joke (and many others) but just fucking laugh it off and take it on the chin like a man. It's not that you are appalled about laughing at death, it's because you are French and don't like the (obviously joking) accusation.
People, and probably yourself, laugh at death all the time. It's the subject of a large amount of humour and unavoidable. Just because this is a terrorist attack it doesn't magically elevate the deaths to another level of tragedy. People joke at funerals about the deceased all the time, are you suggesting that these people are despicable?
James AD Joyce, who will be added to my friends list, is correct - you are an embarrassment to your country. The French have it bad enough without people like you masking knee-jerk nationalism with thinly veiled moral 'highhorsing'.
Re:Mobile phone net (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:or is it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Jeez... (Score:5, Interesting)
Their ultimate goal may be to get their opponents to yield, however the very fact that these are terrorist organisations, and not well established armies, mean that they are weak. You resort to terrorism when you're too few to lead guerilla warfare, and guerilla warfare when you are too weak for open conflict. You do it to spread fear and get your enemy to do stupid things, not to "win".
I'm not British, but I live in London and was on the train to Victoria this morning when I heard about the explosions. I did write both about my trip (which was fairly uneventful) and some thoughts on terrorism on my blog [hokstad.com]. Hopefully one day politicians will get a clue, and maybe the terorrist dorks will get a harder time recruiting more people.
Thoughts and prayers (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally feel a great deal of sorrow and hope that some lives can be saved by medical staff there.
Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:3, Interesting)
Bacause he isn't, by definition. He was a tyrant, an opressor, a dictator, and so on. But terror from the side of the state is not called terrorism.
no reason to get so content that you call the guy who kept the attacks from happening for 4 years evil.
So? I see him as responsible for an upsurge in new terrorists because of his actions. I see him as responsible for violating civil liberties, responsible for violating constitutional rights, responsible for turning a republic into a proto-fascist state. And I do consider this evil.
Re:Bound to happen, unfortunately (Score:3, Interesting)
Well put.
A sizable part of the 9-11 terrorists had either lived or was living in the West (Germany) when they committed their attacks. The Madrid attacks were perpetrated by Moroccans living in Spain. Britain seems long to have thought itself safe from terrorism of the islamic variety by being soft on various islamic extremists (Finsbury Park mosque).
--
virve
Re:go read history (Score:3, Interesting)
It is widely agreed that it was likely the US involvement in the Middle East peach negotiations between Isreal and Palestine.
Best not to give power to evil. (Score:1, Interesting)
As with any evil, the best thing you can do is ignore it and not let it affect you. Terrorists are like spoiled children who believe they are not getting the attention they deserve. London should be celebrating today, but instead, they are dealing with a temper tantrum.
To those of you who have said, "Hope you learned a valuable lesson" or "See Bush was right," aren't you supposed to be outside for recess? I think I hear your mother calling.
It's the attitude of Americans like you that make the rest of us look like idiots. I imagine that you are the last of the 15% still supporting our war on terrorism. Stiffer laws and less civil liberties are exactly the opposite of what we need. Osama came right out and basically said he hopes to bankrupt us while we look for him. So far, it seems to be working.
But I digress. Good luck to you Londoners. There are those of us in America wishing you the best and praying for you. And congrats on the Olympics. I look forward to watching them being broadcast on BBC. w00t.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
All in all, driving my own SUV or car-pooling with the neighbor is really looking pretty attractive.
Who is really behind this? (Score:1, Interesting)
I may be in the minority on this one, but I'm not so concerned with Iraq or Saddam or Bin Laden. What worries me is that these terrorist attacks may not have been instigated by Al Qaeda, that there may be someone else pulling the strings. Someone with a very different political agenda.
"So this is how liberty dies..."
(Posted anonymously because Big Brother may be watching)
two things... (Score:3, Interesting)
First, and the biggest, was our backing of Islamic warriors against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. We sent the CIA to teach them (including Bin Laden) to fight to outst the Soviet Union. Kind of ironic that we boycott and Olympics and train people who would ultimately kill our own over the USSR invading and occupying a country we would later invade and occupy also.
Once the USSR left, we left the Mujahadeen twisting in the wind, warriors willing and able to fight for their beliefs with no one to fight against. Bin Laden then turned on the US, angry about this.
More importantly, the same warriors declared war on the US for invading parts of the Middle East (repelling the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait) and occupying the holiest land of all, the Arabian Penninsula.
These were the biggest factors that led to the attacks on the World Trade Center (both times). But despite all of our foolishness here, the blame lies with Bin Laden/Al Qaeda. Ultimately, they ordered the attacks.
Still, if we hadn't decided to meddle in the Middle East (all the way back to replacing the Shah in Iran) we probably wouldn't have become the target of choice, and 9/11 wouldn't have occured. We really should spend more effort understanding people and less attacking them. Everyone loves to see a bully toppled, so the more we invade countries, the easier it is for our enemies to recruit members.
Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It! (Score:3, Interesting)
The loudest objectors were non-interventionists and those with "wag the dog" conspiracy theories about Clinton.
Afghanistan was a direct response to 9/11. Osama most likely really was there, and they nearly caught him. Nobody tried to label it as primarily a "humanitarian" mission, although it certainly was a big added bonus to see the Taliban have to go back to their caves for a while. That was another great success, and not many protested that either.
Iraq was none of those things. If we had gone to Sierra Leone instead and tried to stop the campaign of mass amputations, for instance... but no. We ignored that. We went to Iraq. We went to help the wealthy man, passing over a dozen diseased beggars on our trip across the ocean. We could have been blunt about what we were going to do, I think... anyway, nobody even tried to sell the war as primarily humanitarian until after it became obvious the only nuke program was in Iran.
Go on, if you want to hear the litany of evidence again, I'll oblige but, haven't you already heard it?
Re:What will the EU do? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well here is one sample that refutes your bullshit grasp of history:
"Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the cost of policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit the potential of modern technology. This strategy had particular relevance to operations in Iraq. On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail *the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death...for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.*
Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.* Henry Wilson shared Churchills enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause *only discomfort or illness, but not death* to dissident tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and *kill children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.*
Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented *by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly*. In the event, gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect* though gas shells were not dropped from aircraft because of practical difficulties [.....]
Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being bombed and machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the Korak mountains commented, seventy years after the event: *They were bombing here in the Kaniya Khoran...Sometimes they raided three times a day.* Wing Commander Lewis, then of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls how quite often *one would get a signal that a certain Kurdish village would have to be bombed...*, the RAF pilots being ordered to bomb any Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein, Squadron-Leader Kendal of 30 Squadron recalls that if the tribespeople were doing something they ought not be doing then you shot them.*
Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale, also of 30 Squadron: *If the Kurds hadn't learned by our example to behave themselves in a civilised way then we had to spank their bottoms. This was done by bombs and guns.
Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that *The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.* It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and Kurdistan were also useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry drew up a list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and air-to-ground missiles:
Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock] man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons were first used in Kurdistan.
Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *Iraq: From Sumer to Saddam*.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
The US was giving Billions in weapons and money to Israel, with Bush calling Sharon "a man of peace" while refusing to work with the Palestinian government, which was at the time dealing with malnutrition in its population. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tried to move the 9/11 attack to earlier so that people would see how it was in response to that. Bin Laden has stated numerous times that America was the enemy because it stationed military and troops in bases in Saudi Arabia that are close to the holy city of Mecca. He also griped that the US was propping up the Saudi monarchy which was repressing dissent.
The US is disliked by much of the world for things like that. I believe an opinion poll in the Middle East found that people felt Bin Laden was fighting America for the right reasons (to end what I said above), but doing it in an entirely wrong way (by resorting to terrorism).
The proper way to fight terrorism (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're (still) in a frog-bashing mood, don't bother to click the above link. It says good things about the French.
What I gather from this article is that you don't fight terror by invading unrelated countries. You fight terror through boring, tedious and frustrating police and intelligence work. You share resources and information with your allies, you try to outwit the terrorists.
I think it was John Kerry who got bashed for saying something along the lines "I don't think we can ever win the war on terror, but we can reduce it to a mere nuisance". He was spot on. And the guys this article mention are doing just that. Their cost is several orders of magnitude below the cost of the Iraq war and I think they are far more effective.
Invading Iraq was a huge mistake as far as terrorism is concerned. Proponents of this war tend to present a false dichotomy. It was invading Iraq or doing nothing. This is wrong. The choice was between invading Iraq and setting up more of this kind of counter-terrorist cells.
Re:As a spanish guy, from Madrid, I'm sorry (Score:1, Interesting)
Tell our soldiers deployed in Afghanistan that they have surrendered to the terrorists. As you now, as we have just reinforced our military presence in Afghanistan.
Also, tell our armed forces that we have surrendered to the ETA terrorists. As you also now, we have been suffering their attacks for more than 30 years.
It's just that the people from Spain was aware of the difference war fighting the terrorisrs (as in Afghanistan, action that we fully supported, and we still do today) and the war in Irak, that in our opinion had nothing to do with terrorism.
Re:More details (Score:2, Interesting)
I heard an interview with a woman who was trapped on one of the trains the was bombed. She sounded so unflapped and one of the things she mentioned was that nobody panicked. I think that's why the fatalities are so low, because in most other places there would have been a stampede after an event like this.
Re:go read history (Score:4, Interesting)
That would be a very convenient explanation. It's quite unfortunate that it has no base in reality whatsoever. Bin Laden is no stupid religious fundamentalist who wants to kill all infidels. That's the rhetorics he often uses in his videos to get his followers rallied up, but his actual goal is to get the western countries out of arabic countries. This whole thing started with the presence of U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden wanted them out in order to increase his own influence, and to that effect, he started his campaign against the Americans.
This is about power, not religion.
Re:As it breaks... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure the British weren't too thrilled about fighting the Second World War, either, but it's not as though they had much of a choice. It only takes one side to start a war.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree, and I'd go on to think that an American withdrawl would probably just result in the country degenerating into a civil war between the three factions. Then some radical Taliban-equse group would rise up and take control of the country via violent military action. Just like what happened after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan.
Take the next step.
That is almost certainly what would happen and then the US would be responsible for turning a stable, moderately prosperous nation (albeit a dictatorship) into another Afghanistan, complete with grinding poverty, brutal warlords and oppressive theocracies.
It is crucial that we stay until the fledgling Iraqi government is capable of holding things together.
Police request preservation of digital comms (Score:5, Interesting)
------------
A coordinated terrorist act requires communication between the parties involved. It is therefore likely that the perpretrators behind the multiple explosions in central London today have used telecommunications systems in the planning and execution of their act. The investigation into this crime will take many months and it is likely that the siginificance of specific communications data and current stored content will not become immediately apparent and there is a real risk that important evidence could be lost.
On behalf of all of the agencies involved in the investigation of this incident, I am requesting that, to the extent of what is reasonably practicable that you preserve all existing communications data and content of stored communications (email, SMS, voicemail) held by you in order that it is available to the investigation of this crime.
Data is exempt from the 1st Data Protection Principle if it is processed for the purpose of prevention and detection of crime or the apprehension and prosecution of offenders. (Section 29 (1) Data Protection Act 1998.)
This request relates only to the preservation of data and content which is currently stored. Any access requests to such data will be made through the appropriate legal process.
I will keep this matter under constant review and will notify you immediately of any change of circumstances. I will in any case update you on a monthly basis as to the on-going requirement for the preserved data.
Below I have included a list of the of data types that this request addresses. This list is not exclusive and you are asked to preserve any data that can be used to identify communications that have taken place and links to the parties.
* Content of email servers
* Email server logs
* Radius or other IP address to user resolution logs
* Pager, SMS and MMS Messages currently on the network's platform
* Content of voicemail platforms
* Call data records (includes mobile, fixed line, international gateways & VoIP)
* Subscriber records
Any questions in relation to this request should be addressed in the first instance by email to xxxx@xxxx.org. The National Hi-Tech Crime Unit is an operational unit of the National Crime Squad of England and Wales.
Signed
Jim Gamble
Deputy Director General
National Crime Squad
Chair ACPO Data Communications Group
Re:go read history (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a really good point. Very insightful, actually. I recently read a book that included some critical thinking along these lines to explain how benevolent philosophies like Socialism and Communism lead to brutal governments like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. The book was The Case for Democracy, by Natan Sharansky, a former political prisoner of the Soviet Union. It's light on facts and documentation, but the guy's political theory on the difference between fear societies and free societies is worth reading. He challenged much of what I've held as political gospel and forced me to rethink the nature of freedom and what separates nations like the US and UK from places like, well, Iraq or Afghanistan. His thesis is that true freedom all begins with human rights and holding a government accountable for its human rights record, and that it was this that truly brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it is this that will bring about peace in the Middle East. A very fascinating read, and I see much of Sharansky's theory on fear societies in your post.
Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It! (Score:2, Interesting)
The differences between the two are so vast I'm amazed you're trying to compare them. The people of Iraq are overwhelmingly in favor of the US and democracry. The insurgents are a minute fraction of the popularce, and would be totally ineffective without their import of Saudi teenagers. While the Iraqi people may be in disagreement as to how soon the US should leave after freeing them from a dictator that made the Shah look like a kindergartner, they are as whole grateful for the intervention.
Re:But were these "terrorists" (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Growing apathy, there's only so much sorrow one can feel for anyone.
2. Numb, from exposing to all those horrific act. When you see enough of them, you get used to seeing in (not a good thing... but it happens).
3. Lack of connection, when you have no close ties there, No. 1 sets in very quickly.
Re:Read the Koran (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
When ranting,
a) have enough sack to attach your name
b) get the facts straight
Rants need to be bulletproof to do anything other than bolster the position of the attacked party.
Re:Read the Koran (Score:1, Interesting)
Your mistake is confusing what people say, with what actually happens in reality.
Re:Ignorant of History? Get Ready to Repeat It! (Score:3, Interesting)
I generally respect your opinions. However, using human calculus is a really slippery slope.
You say: First, all the naysayers who, disgustingly, in my opinion, invoke the US war dead in favor of their arguments also apparently don't care about Iraqis at all. Because if the US leaves, a SHITLOAD more Iraqis will die than ever would have, regardless of whether or not the US ever set foot in Iraq in 2003. That is an absolute given. So if they're out to "preserve life", that's certainly not the way to do it.
Do you have any credible or concrete information to show that more or less Iraqis would have died if we'd never invaded? Where does the post withdrawal "shitload" figure come from? The death rate in Iraq right now is near 100,000 (one hundred thousand) per year. If we had left Iraq alone, and "evil" Saddam remained in power, can you really argue more Iraqis would have died? Would more troops have died if we pressed the hunt for OBL instead of diverting to Iraq?
Further, you go on to chide us all for not willing to make sacrifices. I love making sacrifices as much as the next guy, and I'm glad to hear you served in the military, if not the infantry, but honestly what is the true cost of this (as you say elsewhere) pre-emptive war?
It's not just the 1700 soldiers who signed up to die. And it's not the 200,000 Iraqis who were under the wrong shell at the wrong time. The real sacrifice is the "generational" investment (the one that is shielded from our eyes by no-contest appropriations and deficit spending). And what's more, it's a crying shame that we aren't all sacrificing under war rationing and turning in our extra cash for war bonds. Maybe if this generation could sacrifice like my grandfather's and my uncle's -- if we learned that war-time was a time to do without -- then we wouldn't be as trivial and trite (even flippant?) as you seem to be about choosing war.
If sacrifice is so important why aren't we pushing for the draft, and why haven't you re-upped?
Why are there still war-supporters at home and not in Iraq securing the objective (whatever that may be)?
So yeah, nothing personal. This though is hillarious to me:
Things like "we'd like to begin a multi-decade comprehensive strategy of political change in the middle east to kill off Panislamic radicalism, forcibly when necessary, for our own safety and security, and that of the Western economies, in addition to enabling free markets and free exchange of information and ideas among the peoples of the mideast for long term mutual benefit, and we're going to start by militarily overtaking and occupying a quasi-secular, centrally located nation-state to begin creating a catalyst for change and modernization in the region" [...] In other words don't debate the real issue at all, don't address the choices with the citizenry -- just lie to everyone and then argue long after the fact that it was in their own best interest. This is why it's so fucked up that you don't need congress to declare war anymore. Nice one. As a progressive, or at least a Kerry supporter, you have to acknowledge the irony of what you just said... I.e., it was OK for Bush to lie us into war for the very long term outcome. Wow.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
"Except for the minor detail that the terrorists are doing everything they can to inflict maximum civilian casualities"
Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong. Try again. The U.S and Britain were doing everything they could to maximize civilian casualties during World War II. How else can you explain the fire bombing of cities like Dresden and pretty much every city in Japan. Japanese cities were all built from wood so mass incendiary bombing created some wonderous fire storms that killed almost nothing but civilians which is mostly what you find in most citites.
Or lets take Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the U.S. had been trying to minimize civilian casualties they would have dropped them on military targets that weren't in the middle of large cities. They also probably could have dropped one not two. The Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous killing of civilians designed to "terrorize" Japan in to unconditional surrender. It was precisely "terrorism" American's cherish their double standards though, like most people, though more so.
Militaries will SAY they are trying to minimize casualties, and they probably do try more now than they used to, partially because the global press scrutiny is harsher than it once was. Still the U.S. routinely kills people from high altitude and long distance with no real knowledge of weather the target is full of civlians or insurgents. There are only two options, in a guerilla war:
- Dont kill insurgents so you don't kill civilians
- Kill insurgents and you are going to civilians
There isn't a third option.
Another example, its well documented that the U.S. declared regions of Vietnam as free fire zones, which meant the U.S. military was licensed to kill everyone in those zones, full well knowing many if not most were innocent civilians.
Re:Responsibility (Score:1, Interesting)
In other words, not some sort of organized terror syndicate which holds meetings and has an overall hierarchy. Osama appears as the central figure not so much because he has been the mastermind of individual attacks, but rather because 1. he's the person with connections, the one who can put persons of like mind together and 2. he has, or had, a lot of money.
Re:Clever (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Police request preservation of digital comms (Score:1, Interesting)
UK police and criminal intelligence people have wanted to ask for this for a very very long time. In fact this wish predates the madrid bombing and even 911!
Some time ago they wrote a position paper [quintessenz.org] stating that it would be smart to force telecommunication providers (telephone & ISP`s) to store who telephones who, who e-mail`s who, who visites which sites and then some. They didn`t go into the details. The central point of these plans is that the internet is just like the phone system and therefore they should be able to request logs. The only dabate is for how long these log should be retained and how to keep within the european human right treaty which says every privacy invasion should be "proportional". But guess what, it wasn`t just the oppinion of some crazy bobbies (uk cops), it was a real plan [privacyinternational.org]
ignored are still
Telephone companies can expect normal and "lawfull interception" equipment ready to handle any new standardized signaling system for sending phone numbers around. Isp`s will have to hack their collection systems with every new way of evading capture and every new new Internet application protocol. Also isp`s will be collecting many gigabytes every minute, (and many times that on peek hours), which is tough. But what is really tough is that Internet traffic grows so much faster than telephone traffic. Isp`s will en up having to buy extra storrage every month. And what should a application level traffic data collection system do when it reaches storage or processing capacity limits? Signal core routers to throttle Internet traffic routing?
But wait, won`t the UK politicians dislike this plan even more than the ID card plan? Yes they very well might! If only there was some sort of commision of european justice a interior affairs ministers that could make laws without input from any pairlements.... Thank god we don`t yet have one of those, but there is the justice and home office comity [edri.org] of the European council. They answer only to the national pairlements but as the software patents showed, what national pairlement actually cares about what goes on ins Brussels? I mean, what hea
Re:People in the UK are used to it. (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're comparing him to the Islamic terrorists, that's a far more complex issue, and one that I'm not going to comment on 'cause I'll get shouted at.
Re:Al Qaeda group are a bunch of amateurs (Score:3, Interesting)
Hate to break it to you but the problem started when the U.S. installed Karzai as a puppet to run the country for the U.S. He is an ex Conoco employee, which was a big plus to the oil men in the White House when they picked him. He is a total kiss up to the Bush administration. The U.S. spent liberally flying around the country in a helicopter, handing out money to tribal leaders to make sure he got elected. You can't really expect a puppet like Karzai to get tough and demand the U.S. fulfill its aid promises, or for example threaten to kick the U.S. out of Bagram for instance. If he got to tough with the U.S. they would see that he was replaced with a more compliant puppet. You see Afghanistan is EXACTLY like every puppet regime the U.S. has abused over the last century.
I think you would have to go further and say the U.S. completely botched the whole Afghan war, not juse the aftermath.
Instead of going in to Afghanistan fast and hard and smacking down the Taliban and Al Qaeda they sent in a few special forces and fought pretty much the entire ground war using unreliable proxy armies, mostly from warlords with decidely mixed, agendas and they mostly let the Taliban and Al Qaeda scatter. The warlords were both easily bribed and more converned about maintaining their private armies and growing the profits from their opium farms.
Instead of fighting an enemy that was somewhat centralized in Afghanistan they are now well scattered around the world, and many have returned to the tribal areas in Pakistan where they have as much of a haven as they did under the Taliban, since Pakistan wont let anyone near them there.
Why was Afghanistan botched so badly, because George had a fixation on Saddam and Iraq, and had issues with his daddy's unfinished business. So he redirected most of the forces he should have used to ruthless liquidate Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, into Iraq. As a result Al Qaeda is alive, well and going strong, and Iraq is a bloody mess, and a recruiting poster for Islamic revolution. It sends a really bad message when you are attacked as badly as the U.S. was on 9/11 and you let the people responsible get away and go hammer some guy that had nothing to do with it.
I know George is supposed to be a "war" president and he used to score his highest marks in the polls for fighting the war on "Terrorism", and thats how he got reelected, but if you really look at his record he completely botched both Afghanistan and Iraq, and Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are as strong as every, so I really don't know what is is he's done to deserve street cred for being tough on terrorism, other than maybe robbing people of their civil liberties, for example snatching people around the world and spiriting them off to be tortured, or locking American citizens up indefinitely with no due process.
Another interesting tidbit I saw this week, Uzbekistan and Kyrgistan I think, backed by Russia and China are telling the U.S. to get the hell out of the bases they loaned to the U.S. to invade Afghanistan. It turns out the U.S. has been using the bases to incite the overthrow of the respective governments, Uzbekistan in particular, which has had some violent internal strife recently. They are oppresive dictatorships to be sure, but its kind of a case study in how to piss off people, or maybe piss on people, when a country helps you out with a military base to avenge 9/11, you let Bin Laden get away and then you focus your energy on trying and overthrow the government that loaned the base to you instead of on Al Qaeda.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
"and I believe plans are in place"
Dude, you are too funny. I'm sure they were in place until it turned out the Iraqi's didn't greet the U.S. with roses, and the U.S. military got itself tied completely up in Iraq. The U.S. military is stretched so thin it can't do ANYTHING else without a draft. If the U.S. can't occupy a little mostly flat place like Iraq they have no chance controlling Iran.
There is zero chance the Bush administration could sell another war to the American people unless they fabricate one whopping lie of a case for it. Not sure anyone would believe it the second time around now that everyone realizes they are liars and they got a couple thousand Americans killed based on those lies, and are costing us hundreds of billions of dollars we dont have.
"hostage-taking terrorist"
In case you haven't heard your President is a hostage taking terrorist too
I think its still every much open to debate if Iran's new president had much to do with the embassy. The current government of Iran is bad but so was the Shah, the ruthless dictator the U.S. installed and propped up before 1979 and so maddened the Iranian people that they were pushed in to the arms of the Islamic Revolution, and in to thinking the Ayatollahs were an improvement over the Shah. Bottomline is if you don't like the Iranian government, you can mostly blame the U.S. because its misguided policies laid the foundation for it.
Re:Al Qaeda group claims responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
As a matter of fact, in Iran, yes it is. The Shah held and gained power almost entirely thanks to the U.S. backing him. He was a corrupt despot, who brutalized his people. They stormed the U.S. Embassy to exact revenge for America's destructive role in their country. Only hope you have for finding many friends for the U.S. in Iran are among the young who don't remember the Shah.
"If you believe the US can't afford "hundreds of billions of dollars" you haven't looked at how much we blow on pizza."
I think you should probably focus your attention on the U.S. current account deficit, instead of pizza. Its running around 6.4% of GDP and will easily hit a new high over $800 billion this year. The U.S. is a nation living lavishly on borrowed money and borrowed time. The U.S. wont be able to afford anything if foreign banks and investors decide to stop propping up its trade and budget deficits.
"Precision munitions provide great leverage."
Only if you can find targets.
I'm sure the U.S. could sieze Tehran, I just doubt the U.S. could control the place. Once it turns in to an insurgency as it has in Iraq all of America's shiny weapons are nearly useless. You need grunts to patrol streets and to be fed in to the meat grinder. Chances are you will need draftee's since most young Americans are realizing its no fun patrolling streets in the Middle East where people want to kill you.
Why bin Laden doesn't like us (Score:3, Interesting)
The colonial army did all kinds of things that would be considered nasty and underhanded for the time.
One thing was to sit and snipe, continuously, from outside enemy range, rather than fighting. Sure, maybe it didn't follow someone's "warfare ethics" of the time, but it worked.
Bin Laden *could* theoretically whip up a bunch of people into a frenzy, go march them out and have them hurl themselves against a bunch of US tanks. It would be tactically stupid, have no impact, and would be vastly inferior to blowing up the WTC, but he could do it. But he's no more of an idiot than George Washington was, and isn't going to do that.
Watch the excellent movie Lawrence of Arabia. Besides being one of the most incredible classic movies out there, it demonstrates the way the West has been treating the Middle East since World War I. Understandably, some people are very unhappy with this.
The time after World War II was a great example. Quick, simplified summary of why a lot of Arabs don't like the US:
* Nobody in Europe or the US particularly liked Jews before World War I. (A good deal of this was due to the fact that Jews formed a disproportionately influential part of the professional class that was finishing off the last of the old peasant/aristocracy.) There was plenty of discriminatory law against them -- in some European countries they couldn't own land and the like.
* World War I happened, pretty much a power grab on the part of a bunch of European and Asian nations. Arabia, which was a backwater at the time, had British troops all over it due to combat in the area. Britain being Britain, it decided to start sticking its fingers in Arabian politics and "administrate" things.
* Germany, which had been stomped in World War I, had laws produced during the liberal Weimar Republic (post WWI, pre-WWII) which essentially ensured that Jews would be treated as equal citizens in a number of ways. Not surprisingly, Jewish immigration to Germany increased.
* World War II happened. It was essentially a backlash against all the rather nasty things that (France, especially) Germany's opponents in World War I had rather vindictively done to it after the Treaty of Versailles. Among other things, this included Jews. Hitler originally wanted to deport Jews to somewhere outside of Germany (Madagascar was a popular choice), but eventually (particularly due to France not cooperating) slid towards the extermination of German Jews.
* World War II ended. There were huge numbers of Jews who had had their property siezed by the Nazi Party and had to be relocated somewhere. Nobody in Europe or the US really wanted a huge influx of Jews, especially poor refugees. One convenient solution to the problem was that there had been a Zionist movement for some time present in the Jewish community to establish a Jewish state. The logical solution to kill all birds with one stone? Simply designate a chunk of the Jews' Promised Land as a permanent residence for them. That would stick them all off somewhere where nobody would have to worry about them, and they (or at least the Zionist movement) would be happy. The problem is that this area was already occupied by a number of not-very-powerful Arabic people (and the land, while not as religiously significant to the Muslims as the Jews, still had many religiously significant places). These Arabs were brushed aside, as the US and other European nations liked the idea a good deal.
* Clashes with Israeli nationalist settlers and Arabic residents of the area grew, and a number of Arabic nations decided to kick the Jewish invaders out. The US refused to militarily intervene and save Israel, but had provided Israel with some rather nice military hardware. Using this hardware, Israel handily stomped the armies of the surrounding Arabic countries t
Re:Good point. (Score:2, Interesting)
Only 1,358 V-2s were fired at London, in 1944-1945. But the V-2s, like the terrorists' bombs, arrived without warning, and there was no effective defense; they were stopped by destroying the organization that sent them.