More Blasts in London

[seadzz]

You guys ok? This is making me more and more anti religious militant everyday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4703777.stm

sdz

[Mr Whippy]

Bad news. But we ourselves have partial blame in all of this mess recently. Our goverment is not totally innocent.

Yeah those IRA were annoying too, shame a certain goverment wasen't too fussed what they were doing when they lined their pockets. Or bombing farm houses where familes live, then we wonder why they want to kill us.

And we don't know if they're religious militants or just doing it for other reasons which is pretty obvious...

[Sanitarium]

Does Anyone Know who are doing these bombs.
I hope Everyone is alright.
-San

[musichound]

Originally Posted by Mr Whippy

Bad news. But we ourselves have partial blame in all of this mess recently. Our goverment is not totally innocent.

Yeah those IRA were annoying too, shame a certain goverment wasen't too fussed what they were doing when they lined their pockets. Or bombing farm houses where familes live, then we wonder why they want to kill us.

And we don't know if they're religious militants or just doing it for other reasons which is pretty obvious...

True, no government is totally innocent, but the animals who do these bombings are total morons who should be killed or captured before they kill more inniocent lives. No one should be granted accecptance for the selfish acts of violence they are imposing on everyone. You live in the UK. I live in the U.S. I have never heard of the UK ot the U.S. killing babies and innocent civillians on purpose like these bastards are doing.

I sincerely hope no one got hurt or killed because of this.

[Febs]

Originally Posted by musichound

True, no government is totally innocent, but the animals who do these bombings are total morons who should be killed or captured before they kill more inniocent lives. No one should be granted accecptance for the selfish acts of violence they are imposing on everyone. You live in the UK. I live in the U.S. I have never heard of the UK ot the U.S. killing babies and innocent civillians on purpose like these bastards are doing.

I don't want to open Pandora's Box here, but what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Not that that justifies these bombings, and my thoughts are with London. The early reports that I've seen indicate that these were relatively small blasts and I hope that no-one was killed or seriously injured.

[musichound]

Originally Posted by Febs

I don't want to open Pandora's Box here, but what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Not that that justifies these bombings, and my thoughts are with London. The early reports that I've seen indicate that these were relatively small blasts and I hope that no-one was killed or seriously injured.

Absolutely right, Febs. I forgot about that one, but I did mention that in one of the other threads in this forum. I specifically stated if these weren't acts of terroism I don't know what else is. Thankfully, these atrocious acts are not being done any more by us. I will edit this with the link to my post when I find it.

EDIT: Here is my post regarding it:
http://www.misticriver.net/boards/sh...ima#post270338

[Lewis]

This is getting annoying now. What do they hope to acheive? The UK or US will never become Islamic states like Afganistan and Iraq used to be. This is of course assuming that these bombings are by Al Qaida like 9/11 and 7/7/05.

Oh btw we got the Olympics, but everyones forgotten about that now because of this. The UK is supposed to be celebrating winning the 2012 games but these poeple have to ruin it.

[Mr Whippy]

Originally Posted by musichound

You live in the UK. I live in the U.S. I have never heard of the UK ot the U.S. killing babies and innocent civillians on purpose like these bastards are doing.

"One of the Resistance commanders told the Mafkarat al-Islam correspondent, “the occupation forces bombed out homes and families to draw us back and get us to give up the battle.” But the Resistance did not withdraw, but continued to fight, bombarding the US positions a full hour after the American air raids.

A Resistance source said that the Resistance fighters did not withdraw from the battle even though they knew that their homes were being bombed. They only withdrew after receiving the order to pull back. The source noted that the Resistance lost only three men martyred and four wounded in the battle, and the wounded are all in good condition. The city was at that time holding funeral services for the martyrs killed in the battle.


A medical source in Mosul Hospital said that more than 32 children were killed in the American bombing and that the number was still on the rise because many of the wounded were so badly injured that they were not likely to survive. In addition to the children, 14 women were killed by the US air raids, five of them pregnant at the time of death. Eleven men, most of them in advanced years, were also killed."

Bombing family homes in a attempt to crush their morale? Doesn't work, and makes them hate us more, willing to fight and die even more, and brings forth more willing to take up arms. No different to our struggle in London WW II regarding the V1/V2.

[musichound]

Originally Posted by Mr Whippy

"One of the Resistance commanders told the Mafkarat al-Islam correspondent, “the occupation forces bombed out homes and families to draw us back and get us to give up the battle.” But the Resistance did not withdraw, but continued to fight, bombarding the US positions a full hour after the American air raids.

A Resistance source said that the Resistance fighters did not withdraw from the battle even though they knew that their homes were being bombed. They only withdrew after receiving the order to pull back. The source noted that the Resistance lost only three men martyred and four wounded in the battle, and the wounded are all in good condition. The city was at that time holding funeral services for the martyrs killed in the battle.


A medical source in Mosul Hospital said that more than 32 children were killed in the American bombing and that the number was still on the rise because many of the wounded were so badly injured that they were not likely to survive. In addition to the children, 14 women were killed by the US air raids, five of them pregnant at the time of death. Eleven men, most of them in advanced years, were also killed."

Bombing family homes in a attempt to crush their morale? Doesn't work, and makes them hate us more, willing to fight and die even more, and brings forth more willing to take up arms. No different to our struggle in London WW II regarding the V1/V2.

This is true, but were these innocent people targeted deliberately or was it because of misfire? Remember, innocent lives have been lost in most conflicts because of accidental bombings and misdirected raids. If this is the case, please remember these terrorists are targeting innocent people on purpose.

P.S. Like I stated in another post: Hiroshima and Nakasaki should have never happened. I consider that to be the biggest attact on civillians in world history.

[FlameGrilled]

Well, as far as 'on purpose' bombing goes, of non-military targets and non-governmental centres of power goes, i'm afraid i will have to remind people that both my country (the UK) and the US did indeed do so and quite historically.

You think all those bombs aimed (and 'aimed' is kinda a funny term to use considering the high-altitude blanket nature of the bomb runs) at German centres of industry were totally innocent of civilian casualties..??

No, in a word, they were not - and people organising and planning targets knew damn well there was gonna be some fallout caused by missed hits and stray bombs hitting civillians in near proximity and the surrounding areas that were not part of the 'target'.

But the people involved, sadly, have a justification for that - it's best described as 'you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette' or more simply, they expect to have to allow for some non-combatants to be inevitable victims.

If you look at ANY organised anti-terrorist action that involves breaking a siege by means of sending in troops to force a surrender or literally having to go in and gun down armed enemies, there is a factored in level of innocent casualties and fatalities they expect and reasonably 'write off' as inenvitable consequences that serve the greater good.

Ha ha, ferking ha... if that's hilarious, i dread to think of what it takes to shift the balance of reclassifiying the inevitable toll to greater numbers when it suits.. too bloody easily i suspect.

And from the US's point of view, they also did their share of indirect casualty making during WWII during their bombing raids of Germany.

Unless you are inside the door, so to speak, and literally only target known and authenticated targets and do it in such a way as to literally only catch the target individuals/groups at a point where there is a total minimum of innocents that may get caught in the primary or secondary blast, then it's pretty safe to assume that all bombing is gonna take out a few (or quite a few) unfortunate individuals.

In terms of those who indiscriminately seek to take the lives of others, and let's face it, with these terror acts and some of the better known official military actions of late/recent years and the major conflicts, that opens the scope of 'indiscriminate' to a wide scope - the most efficient and least collateral damaging inducing wielders of weapons are also the most hated by all combatants..

The most discriminating, even when taking on targets of opportunity (and hence 'indiscrimate') are those silent/near silent killers who are also very good clean killers - the 'sniper' or marksman. The separation between snipers and marksman is not what they do, but how...

'Snipers' in their fullest trained military sense, are LR (long range operating) combatants in the sense they have to exist (without being found or leaving tell-tale signs of recent occupation) in the vacinity of where their targets lie.. and sometimes may even need to 'exist' undercover for weeks on end if necessary.

Their civilian counterparts, of whom are of equal rank when it comes to the act of putting a decisively placed round in the right place over a considerable distance, are your 'police' marksman in effect. They don't have to go to the same 'cover yer tracks' extent as a military or para-milltary sniper, but both sides of the same coin play to the same rules - aka you hit what you are sent out to hit, and decisively deliver the message with absolute minimum collatoral damage.

After all, a sniper or marksman can only rely on being able to shoot once, per target, and maintain some degree of safety in a situation, as multiple shots to the same target in sucession is a damn good way of letting those protecting a target know where you are

I know what kinda of people we are dealing with, in terms of these bombings and terror actions, and yes... i would happily spit on their graves as quickly as i'd desecrate their graves .. let alone dwell on what i would decisively and malciously do one or more who crossed my path (and it has happened, in years gone by), and i can't blame anyone for feeling angry and murderous as a psychological and moral reaction for such acts today's terrorists do indulge in.

I never said it explicitly before, after 9/11 or the Madrid bombings or the previous London bombings or today's, but i would have been right in the non-condemable sense, to say that what has happened so far... is the tip of the iceberg.

You know the old legend of Pandora's Box - well some b*stard opened it, and the 'b*stard' in question has many faces and many parallel existences... people in power for who we sadly have supported in their acts of 'making the world a better place' and hence seriously p*ssed of people in the process ..

And when you indulge in such self-righteous acts of policing the world, you cannot expect to do so without taking some indisriminact damage caused by terror acts.

The only thing we can safely say, in the contempory world of terrorism, is we won't see another 9/11 happen. The reason, simple - it only had it's effect on people due to it's sheer intensity and the total unexpected (by the civillian population anyway) event and act that it was.

Noone is gonna let that happen twice, of that you can be sure of - so what we can expect is smaller and more seemingly 'irrational' acts that are more 'kicking you in the teeth, or in the male dangly bits when you are lying injured on the floor' inspired and motivated.

And in all truth, non of the main targets to date have been totally innocent.. in terms of the fact their governmental bodies have all supported and funded and sanctioned training to the very groups that today (in splinter groups) are doing the nasties on us.

Sad, but true...

[FlameGrilled]

Lewis :-

'Getting annoying', at the very least, is the part object of the exercise of such terror acts, or did that bit of historical reasoning escape your knowledge..

It precisely how guerilla actions in more conventional military theatres of conflict worked - you keep going in, in a kinda lone-wolf manner, and set out to do the most morale destroying/shaking limited action you can do with a small number of loyal activists...

And those activists do it with total knowledge (unless they really are as brain-dead as yer average football-match crowd targetting thug) that they risk seriously p*ssing of those they attack. It's totally not unlikely, that people who get kicked and punched or worse soone or later strike back... and if you think terrorists are 'irrational', then some of the more notorious cases of individual actions of acts of revenge, make the average 'irrational terror act' look pretty tame on the 'irrational' scale.

Like when some of the IRA and associated groups found their people being targetted and 'taken out' in hideously precise but highly aggressive ways - that's typical revenge action you cannot totally drive out of the armed forces.. after all, when you train someone to kill, you can't make them as robotic as a light switch.. despite all of the best methods that have been employed to keep the military 'rotweillers' on a tight leesh

[andrewmel]

Originally Posted by musichound

This is true, but were these innocent people targeted deliberately or was it because of misfire?

If they were your brothers and sisters and parents would you care if they were the intended target of a foreign army in your country or not? I wouldnt and would sign on the dotted line to get a few back......

As for the point by Seadzz, I agree, religious fundamentalism, in any form is a bad thing...

The Australian Prime Ministers comments are worth looking at for their contradictory nature....

He is saying that the terrorists aim is to make us change how we live, and if we do they have won.

He is also saying that we need tougher laws, a removal of those fundamental pillars of a free and just society, like the right to see a lawyer, and freedom of speech.

Looks like those forces of fundamenatalism are winning to me.

a

[coreman]

You guys don't know your enemy...I'm glad there are people in power who do...

[BBD]

Originally Posted by coreman

You guys don't know your enemy...I'm glad there are people in power who do...

Really!?! Where? Tell me where that place is and I shall support it with all mah l'il hillbilly hear...wait, you were talking about us....

WARNING: The following rant is not a personal attack against c-man or conservatives in general, though it is sure to be taken that way. And yes, a certain neo-con (though I suspect "faux-con" might be a better tag) member of this board is still on my "ignore" list, so I will not be tempted to bash him when he fails to resist responding....

RANT:We had OBL on the run in Afghanistan, then the Twit-in-Chief diverted valuable military resources to Iraq and used lies to justify it, which turned that country into the REAL terrorist training ground Dumya said it was (even though it weren't). Then there's the notion that if the *ahem* "people," as you call them, did, in fact "know the enemy, then they would've been able to do something before the first round of bombing. And do I need to mention these perps were more or less home(British)-grown? Sooooooooo...Bushie and His Merry Band of 'Yes' Men should start bombing London and the surrounding countryside? I mean, Britain is clearly the new Iran....

Thank God (or the deity/force of your choice) this latest attempt was a failed one. I meant no offense or insensitivity to my friends across the big pond, but no twisted, psuedo-political rhetoric can twist reason to the point it is OK to intentionally maim-n-kill children for highest shock value. Make no mistake, the terrorists and their supporters are far more organized the the Bush League gives them credit for and far more determined to keep up their activities. And so long as we have morons like w. in power, the leaders of these terrorist groups will have ample recruitment and limitless fundraising material.

However, even had L'il King Geo. and his illk (spelling intentional) been defeated in the last elections (yup--still pissed about that one), terrorism would still be a reality for everyone everywhere. But I know of 1,800 US soldiers who would likely be alive...along with tens of thousands of Iraqi innocents...and we would have OBL's head on a pike making the rounds at every Gap opening across N. America.

This is not a simple Us/Them conflict since some of Them are, in fact, Us and vice versa. To try to reduce it to such a simplistic idea is symptomatic of the freakin' problem.

BTW, I don't pretend to have the answers, which is why I vote for people who are smarter than the average meat-sack. And in the last election, I voted for the guy who had actual, demonstrable experience killing the enemy.

Continuing to Rail Against Lemmings Everywhere,
BBD

P.S. I find ANY culture that harbors and/or encourages an atmosphere wherein spirituality is turned into dogma to justify/glorify/deify violence to be disgusting and against any notion of God/Allah/Bhudda/etc.

[coreman]

Your rant aside, Clinton was offered OBL by Sudan but refused to take him. OBL issued his Fatwah in 1998 on Clinton's watch and in it declared war on the US. No action was taken and it was only a matter of time before he hit the USA...and he did, leading to the world's situation today.

There's lot's of blame to go around, including the USA...but let's start with Al Queda and OBL because they aren't going to stop hitting "soft targets" until they run out of money or die. I personally don't see any other way except direct confrontation, including confiscation of funds and military actions.

And this is every bit a war...with corresponding ebbs and flows however eventually it will be won.

[andrewmel]

Was talking to a former minister of justice of Australia today, and I agree with him, what happened in London was a criminal act. It breaks laws, and the law and the courts should deal with it. It is not a war. They are just criminals.

a

[Step666]

I'm not sure if any of you know (or have posted, I only scanned what's been written) but it seems that the blasts yesterday were just detonators.
They exploded in backpacks and whilst traces of proper explosives were found at a couple of the scenes, they thankfully didn't go up.

Fairly minor really - apparenly the idiots were wearing the backpacks at the time and the blasts were so minor that they escaped ebfore people had worked out what was going on...



Oh, and one last thing, apparently 25% of Americans believe that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are one and the same!

[darth_librarian]

A guy was shot at Stockwell tube, about an hour after I passed through there on my way to work. Scary shit.

[Mr Whippy]

Originally Posted by coreman

And this is every bit a war...with corresponding ebbs and flows however eventually it will be won.

The war on terrorism will never be won. Are organized crime gangs, The Mafia, drug lords, The Triad still alive and kicking? Yes. What they do is illegal in terms of the Goverment and the local and international laws. The FBI/MI5 catch one drug runner, only for another to take his place.