London Bombing

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
343

Earth to Jerffy, are you there Jerffy?

Elk’s statements have a way of making people think about their convictions and their stance with respect to the war on terrorism.

Vocal proponents who then decide that they aren’t really concerned enough to do anything personally really have to look at themselves and their motivation.

Perhaps some of those folks discover that they are indeed simply cheerleaders or that they derive pleasure out of the use of military might?

Serving as a cop may indeed be a noble calling, but to compare yourself in terms of bravery and risk to someone at the front lines in Iraq is preposterous.

Grow up Jerffy. You can’t just slip on the cloak of heroism because of your chosen profession…

344

It takes guts to be a cop in Baltimore.

The street gangs down there have a DVD out that shows informants and witnesses murdered just to intimidate other potential witnesses.

Much the same tactics used by the terrorists in Iraq.

Is it the same as being a front line soldier?

No. It is still a tough job.

345

[quote]JeffR wrote:
e,

I’ll bet you that you haven’t made the comments about lack of courage, hypocrisy, etc… to your friends.

Correct?

Please read to them verbatim what you have said.

My contention: You wouldn’t make these comments to people to their face. Why make them here?

JeffR[/quote]

My friends, the ones stated above and people that I know that have been to Iraq or are going to Iraq know my views as stated here on these forums.

No I don’t go screaming to every Tom, Dick, and Harry, I come across, but for people who care to share their views on it I am truthful about my feelings and I again express what, I have expressed here fully!

346

"Zap Branigan wrote:
It takes guts to be a cop in Baltimore.

The street gangs down there have a DVD out that shows informants and witnesses murdered just to intimidate other potential witnesses.

Much the same tactics used by the terrorists in Iraq.

Is it the same as being a front line soldie

No. It is still a tough job. [/quote]

Thanks, Zap. I agree with everything you said.

I am aware of the tactic you are describing.

Does it make anyone else mad that this guy tries to stifle debate using his service as a stick? Does anyone else who served really want to say that there are no non-military jobs that would qualify as “manly?” Does his “target plotting days” give him a lifetime free pass to lord it over people? Is it ok to insult people who I guarantee are more heroic than he?

I absolutely agree, I am no hero. The soldiers at the front most certainly ARE. But, I am definetly no coward. I most certainly won’t stop supporting the mission and our troops.

e, let’s leave it at: I don’t believe for one second that you had the stones to call those people cowards or hypocrites to their faces. They aren’t, and you didn’t.

JeffR.

347

[quote]JeffR wrote:
"Zap Branigan wrote:
It takes guts to be a cop in Baltimore.

The street gangs down there have a DVD out that shows informants and witnesses murdered just to intimidate other potential witnesses.

Much the same tactics used by the terrorists in Iraq.

Is it the same as being a front line soldie

No. It is still a tough job.

Thanks, Zap. I agree with everything you said.

I am aware of the tactic you are describing.

Does it make anyone else mad that this guy tries to stifle debate using his service as a stick? Does anyone else who served really want to say that there are no non-military jobs that would qualify as “manly?” Does his “target plotting days” give him a lifetime free pass to lord it over people? Is it ok to insult people who I guarantee are more heroic than he?

I absolutely agree, I am no hero. The soldiers at the front most certainly ARE. But, I am definetly no coward. I most certainly won’t stop supporting the mission and our troops.

e, let’s leave it at: I don’t believe for one second that you had the stones to call those people cowards or hypocrites to their faces. They aren’t, and you didn’t.

JeffR.

[/quote]

And, I don’t believe for one instant you would have the stones to pick up and go to Iraq if your beloved hero asked you to go. You can always prove me wrong!

348

London bombs

July 12, 2005

Terrorist gang ‘used military explosives’
By Michael Evans, Sean O?Neill and Philip Webster
A SINGLE bombmaker using high-grade military explosives is believed to be responsible for building the four devices that killed more than 50 people last week, The Times can reveal.

Similar components from the explosive devices have been found at all four murder sites, leading detectives to believe that each of the 10lb rucksack bombs was the work of one man. They also believe that the materials used were not home made but sophisticated military explosives, possibly smuggled into Britain from the Balkans.

?The nature of the explosives appears to be military, which is very worrying,? said Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, the chief of the French anti-terrorist police, who was in London to help Scotland Yard.

News of the breakthrough comes as a Times poll conducted in the aftermath of the bombings indicates that an overwhelming majority of the British public favours a tough approach to terrorist suspects. Almost 90 per cent of people want the police to be given new powers to arrest people suspected of planning terrorist acts, tighter immigration controls and strict baggage inspections.

Londoners, who bore the brunt of last Thursday?s carnage, were not as supportive of draconian measures as people in the rest of the country.

The public anger will strengthen Tony Blair?s hand as he prepares to speed up new anti-terrorist laws to help the hunt for the bombers. ?If, as the fuller picture about these incidents emerges and the investigation proceeds, it becomes clear that there are powers which the police and intelligence agencies need immediately to combat terrorism, it is plainly sensible to reserve the right to return to Parliament with an accelerated timetable,? he said.

More than 800 police officers were being drafted in to assist Scotland Yard?s anti-terrorist branch in Britain?s largest criminal inquiry. Film from 2,500 CCTV cameras in the centre of the capital is being examined and more is being taken from cameras across Greater London. Detectives are also searching for a vehicle, flat or garage that the terrorists may have used as a bomb factory.

It is understood that the examination of the No 30 bus at Tavistock Square has yielded vital fragments that have sharpened the focus of the police inquiry. Forensic pathologists have been paying particular attention to the remains of two bodies found in the mangled wreckage of the double-decker.

A senior police source said: ?There are two bodies which have to be examined in great detail because they appear to have been holding the bomb or sitting on top of it. One of those might turn out to be the bomber.? A decapitated head was found at the bus scene which has been, in Israeli experience, the sign of a suicide bomber.

The confirmed death toll stands at 52 but is expected to rise. Police family liaison officers have been assigned to 74 families. As London prepares to hold a two-minute silence and mass vigil on Thursday to commemorate its dead, 12,000 United States service personnel have been ordered not to visit the city for security reasons.

349

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/110705bombingexercises.htm

This video clip is taken from ITN news and features an interview with Peter Power, managing director of Visor Consultants, who were running an exercise for an unnamed company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th.

Toronto-- Chillingly coincidental, the same 9/11 “war games” conducted during the actual tragedy on the morning of September 11, 2001, echo London underground “bombing exercises” which took place at the same time as the real attack, according to Alex Jones? Prison Planet.com.

What are the odds of both human tragedies having coincidental “drills” going on at the exact same time real life was taking so many human lives in two terrorist attacks?

NORAD was conducting drills of flying hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon at 8:30 in the morning, September 11, 2001. A CIA planned exercise on September 11 was built around a plane crashing into a building.

350

Your overwhelming logic has convinced me that the US, Russians, Israeli’s, Spanish and British are all blowing themselves up.

Is it those Zionists again…or perhaps the Illuminati?

Military explosives? Wow there’s a reach. High explosives are mostly all military. Slower explosives are used for mining and construction and just don’t do a good job blowing up Buses, trains and Infidels. You do know the difference right?

351

[quote]orion wrote:

You are probably right, but according to chairman Mao a guerillero moves between his people like a fish in the water. That requires that his people (or a significant part of them) support him and his ideas. It is this support that is created, when civilians die. [/quote]

orion, it is problematic that you are quoting Mao in your defense of anything. Mao was a genocidal maniac…

352

[quote]jayhawk1 wrote:
orion wrote:

You are probably right, but according to chairman Mao a guerillero moves between his people like a fish in the water. That requires that his people (or a significant part of them) support him and his ideas. It is this support that is created, when civilians die.

orion, it is problematic that you are quoting Mao in your defense of anything. Mao was a genocidal maniac…

[/quote]

That?s the point. He was a successful genocidal maniac… Obviously knew what he was doing.

353

[quote]orion wrote:
redswingline wrote:
West did nothing to deserve this attack

By Ezra Levant – Calgary Sun

The intellectuals of the left tell us that we need to understand Muslim terrorists if we are going to stop them.

That’s true. But the left’s idea of understanding is an exercise in hiding from the truth, not seeking it.

We ought not to be so ethnocentric, we’re told. We should try to look at things from their point of view. We should ask: Have we done something to provoke them? Have we offended or humiliated them? What did we do to cause this attack?

Why did they think we deserved this – and what can we do to change our own behaviour so we won’t deserve it next time?

Can we meet them halfway? We have heard this refrain a thousand times – including from Jean Chretien. He told the CBC after 9/11, “you cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliation for the others.”

“We’re looked upon as being arrogant, self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits,” said Chretien, looking thoughtful, imagining he was getting to the root of it.

At the time, Bill Graham said: “I think the prime minister’s comments were right on.”

Today Graham serves as Paul Martin’s foreign minister.

Many leftist pseudo-intellectuals talk that way. The post-modern liberal mind cannot make sense of terrorism – why would anyone want to kill women and children? What would drive someone to do such things?

Surely, our political system can provide a safe outlet for their grievances. Don’t we have departments of multiculturalism? Don’t we give foreign aid? Don’t we have racial affirmative action?

So: If they’re still mad enough at us to bomb us, what did we do wrong?

But that is not getting into the terrorists’ mind. That is not emerging from ethnocentrism – that is burrowing deeper into it, hiding from the reality of things. The post-modern, post-Christian mind does not have the vocabulary to deal with Islamic terrorism.

We do not use the word “evil” anymore, even with apolitical criminals, whose crimes are called sicknesses now, or syndromes, caused by – what is it this week? society? parents? TV? – and who need our understanding and accommodation, not our rejection or punishment. All the more so for avowedly political murders like those in London.

Leftists who call for more understanding or dialogue or compromise, are not understanding the Muslim “other.” They are projecting themselves onto the terrorists, imagining what it would take to cool themselves off if they were ever that mad about something. Have a seminar; bring in some professional mediators; do some role playing – bond.

Such a response does not understand the terrorists. To understand them is simple, if terrifying: Read their writing and listen to their speeches.

They want the world to be ruled by sharia law, where the only constitution is the Qu’ran. They want a theocracy, like Afghanistan was and Iran is, where infidels are killed, or kept in a state of submission, called dhimmitude.

Read Osama bin Laden’s speeches, not those of his lawyers and psychologists in the media. Like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, bin Laden is plain about his intentions.

There was no half way, no compromise, no win-win possible with Hitler. The Jews didn’t do any one thing in particular to him – he hated their very existence.

The West didn’t do any one thing to bin Laden that caused his hate – other than to live freely and outside his authority.

Sixty-five years ago, Britain understood Hitler was evil, and responded with Spitfires, not psychologists.

Here’s hoping Britain today has the same clarity of thought.[/quote]

Didn’t Bin Laden say several times his main goal was the removal of the American military footprint from Saudi? Sounds like there may be a win-win to me. And thank God Britain doesn’t have the same ‘clarity of thought’!

354

Opinion piece from the Guardian. A British Newspaper. Written by a professor.

Invasion reduced the threat of terror

A new political response is needed that has more to do with engaging communities than restricting liberties

Brian Brivati
Tuesday July 12, 2005
The Guardian

Would 7/7 have happened, and would it have been more or less deadly, if we had not liberated Afghanistan and Iraq? Should our policy be changed now? Is it time to run and hide?
The invasion of Afghanistan significantly reduced the capability of the old al-Qaida by removing the only regime it controlled. The invasion of Iraq acted as a deterrent to states that were nurturing a new generation of loosely affiliated “network terrorists”.

Syria and Iran have been energetic sponsors of terror networks - as David Bryman, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who served on the staff of the 9/11 commission, proves in Deadly Connections: States that Sponsor Terrorism; and the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq made them pause to think about what they might gain and lose by continuing to be state sponsors of terror.
Other knock-on effects of the operations were a change of policy in Libya, free elections in Lebanon and the territory governed by the Palestinian Authority, and even limited voting in Saudi Arabia. The destruction of the al-Qaida camps and the attacks on assets and freedom of movement of leading terrorists downgraded their capacity to launch another attack like 9/11.

This did not remove their ability to attack in other ways, as Madrid and Bali showed, and would not stop a cell assembling in a country to perpetrate a single attack, as might be the case here. Some form of attack on London was inevitable, but imagine the kind of attack that al-Qaida could have mounted if it had retained its pre-9/11 links to, or control of, states.

The left responded to 9/11 by focusing on the motivations of the terrorists, the right by focusing on their capabilities. We need to attack both with long-term political, as well as security, initiatives. The outline of the political project already exists; our response to 7/7 should be to stress it with greater force. The operation of often western-backed elites has turned many in the Islamic world towards forms of fundamentalism, and a hard core towards theocratic fascism. Democratising those states must form an essential part of the left-of-centre political project for the region.

Maintaining the threat of military action, either unilaterally or with allies, is also a part of that policy. The use of hard power must remain at the forefront of the west’s defence against fascism in the interests both of our own security and of aiding the process of regime change in those countries that are still laboratories of terror.

Afghanistan and Iraq were the first stages, but continuous war against more and more states is neither the answer nor something that we are capable of sustaining. If the major grievance of people in the Middle East is the presence of western troops in their countries, then democratisation is the only means by which those troops are ever going to leave.

Development, education and welfare provision that give people a more predictable future must form part of the political solution that might, perhaps a generation from now, come. The G8’s Africa agenda was about applying the lesson that development is freedom, that democratisation is born of economic growth. But if that is true in Africa and the Middle East, then it is also true in Britain.

If the terrorists are from abroad, then the war on terror needs to be fought as it has been fought, but democratisation has to be brought front and centre as the reason for our actions. Our methods should be brought into line with international law and that law updated to reflect the new kinds of war states need to fight. If the terrorists are British or based here, a new kind of domestic political response needs to be developed that has more to do with development than internment. We do not need more restrictions on civil liberties. We need enhanced political engagement.

The hard core who perpetrate these crimes will only be defeated through police and military action. But there is no military solution to the soft circle who might protect and support them. The solution domestically must come from the British Muslim community, encouraged by a domestic programme of significant old-style economic aid.

Fascism breeds in poverty and exclusion; it exits democracy and takes up violence when it sees no other option. In the long run the ?10bn planned to be spent on the next generation of nuclear weapons for defence against a threat that no longer exists or the ?5bn to be spent on identity cards would be much better invested in every UK community with a significant Muslim presence.

We offer a deal to the Middle East: embrace democracy and enjoy the benefits of development. The same deal should be offered to UK Muslims; our own democracy needs nurturing just as much as anyone else’s. The cost of positive discrimination will be a rise of support for the far-right. The cost of not engaging these communities is the blood on the seats of the number 30 bus.

? Brian Brivati is professor of contemporary history at Kingston University.

355

I asked the question a long way back: Where are the million muslim marches condemning terrorism? The BS from all those enlightened souls that islam is a religion of peace etc. How in the blazes do “they” know?

Islam is defined by Muslims, not commentators . And the voices I, you and a lot of other people hear of Muslims defining their religion are from the “terrorist camp”. And unless and until prominent ?Muslims? stand up and clearly and loudly separate themselves from the terrorists, then the terrorists have succeeded in defining Islam for everyone.

As for “understanding” the terrorists vroom, sure, I think the idea has merit and we should attempt to get into the minds of these 14th century people. Ultimately though, the fact remains that they’re trying to kill me and you and our way of life and install an islamic caliphate.

So, the “why” isn’t as important as the fact that they are trying to kill us, I would argue.

356

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:

Didn’t Bin Laden say several times his main goal was the removal of the American military footprint from Saudi? Sounds like there may be a win-win to me. And thank God Britain doesn’t have the same ‘clarity of thought’![/quote]

That is correct. Bin Laden wants to remove all “infidels” from Arabia.

He wants to rule Arabia as an Islamic state and having the American military leave Arabia is a good start for him.

He then wants to spread his Islamic state throughout the world through a combination of of his control of oil and his use of terror bombings.

He is a crazy motherfucker.

One of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was to build military bases there so we can protect the worlds oil supply in the region and draw down our miltary footprint on the Arabian Peninsula.

The oil is obviously vitally important to the world and has been protected for decades by the US military.

Iran was the first state I recall that threatened to block the oil tankers.

357

[quote]Orbitalboner wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Orbitalboner wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:

Very good points but wishing for something that will never happen is immature.

It is time we invaded Saudi Arabia, take their resources and erase Wahabism in that country and go from there.

LOL, yeah that’s much more feasible.

Tell me how it isn’t?

Another hoser with a sarcastic comment.

Either way you are along for the ride.

I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but you can’t just randomly invade any country of your choosing, let alone invade AND steal their resources, on which much of the world depends.[/quote]

I never claimed it was legal did I?

Are you a Wahabist? Do you agree with what Wahabism teaches? You are partly to blame if you say yes to either question.

Get over it as you are along for the ride like the rest of us.

358

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:

London bombs

July 12, 2005

Terrorist gang ‘used military explosives’
By Michael Evans, Sean O?Neill and Philip Webster
A SINGLE bombmaker using high-grade military explosives is believed to be responsible for building the four devices that killed more than 50 people last week, The Times can reveal.

…

[/quote]
Military explosives??? Wow, I thought they used Play Dough.

Now they are saying they think it was suicide bombers, not a SINGLE bomber.

I am sure no matter what is found the conspiracy guys will have a good theory on who REALLY did it.

359

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
FCFighter wrote:
This is going to be a long war. Terrorism will not end overnight and it will not end with compassion and understanding.

Correction, it simply will not end, especially if there is no understanding of what creates a terrorists. I am not sure why any of you believe that a war on a concept would ever have the result of being “won”. As long as there are people with strong opinions that affect what they believe in, there will always be those willing to hurt others to achieve a goal. The real question is, how far do you extend yourself in the effort to battle a concept? Until all resources are gone? A nuke dropped on the Middle East today would not end terrorism.

Define victory in this situation.

There have been no more terrorist attacks on our soil since the War on Terror began. Maybe I am using a different definition than you are, but I say we are winning. we are killing a shitload more of them averyday than they are of us. Another point for us.

Fuck ‘understanding’ them and what ‘causes’ terrorists. They are murderers of innocent men women and children. I could give a shit why so long as they are exterminated like the vermen they are.
[/quote]

I have been out of town for the past week, but here is one reason why I am confused by some of you who claim we are “winning”.

Not having a large scale attack in only 4 years is not success, especially if all signs point to terrorists planning a very violent future attack. That may have looked good for the last election, but I wasn’t aware that terrorists were on a schedule.

360

[quote]hedo wrote:
Your overwhelming logic has convinced me that the US, Russians, Israeli’s, Spanish and British are all blowing themselves up.

Is it those Zionists again…or perhaps the Illuminati?

Military explosives? Wow there’s a reach. High explosives are mostly all military. Slower explosives are used for mining and construction and just don’t do a good job blowing up Buses, trains and Infidels. You do know the difference right?[/quote]

Just reporting the news…

361

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:

London bombs

July 12, 2005

Terrorist gang ‘used military explosives’
By Michael Evans, Sean O?Neill and Philip Webster
A SINGLE bombmaker using high-grade military explosives is believed to be responsible for building the four devices that killed more than 50 people last week, The Times can reveal.

…

Military explosives??? Wow, I thought they used Play Dough.

Now they are saying they think it was suicide bombers, not a SINGLE bomber.

I am sure no matter what is found the conspiracy guys will have a good theory on who REALLY did it.[/quote]

How the Government Staged the London Bombings in Ten Easy Steps

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet | July 13 2005

Ten Step Method To Staging a Terrorist Attack

  1. Hire a Crisis Management firm to set up an exercise that parallels the terrorist attack you are going to carry out. Have them run the exercise at the precise locations and at the very same time as the attack. If at any stage of the attack your Arabs get caught, tell the police it was part of an exercise.

  2. Hire four Arabs and tell them they’re taking part in an important exercise to help defend London from terrorist attacks. Strap them with rucksacks filled with deadly explosives. Tell the Arabs the rucksacks are dummy explosives and wouldn’t harm a fly.

  3. Tell four Arabs to meet up at London Underground and disperse, each getting on a different train. Make sure Arabs meet in a location where you can get a good mug shot of them all on CCTV which you can later endlessly repeat to drooling masses on television.

  4. While four Arabs are in London, plant explosives in their houses in Leeds. Plant some explosives in one of their cars in Luton for the police to later discover. Remember that Qu’ran and flight manual in the hijackers’ car? Ha ha, they fell for that one hook, line and sinker. No need to change tactics on this one.

  5. Before the bombings take place, make sure you warn any of your buddies who are scheduled to be anywhere near where the bombs go off. If this gets leaked to the press, just deny it.

  6. 4th Arab goes out partying in London night before and ends up getting out of bed late. No worries, the 9/11 ‘hijackers’ did the same thing but that didn’t cause us a big problem. 4th Arab catches bus to see if other Arabs are waiting for him. 4th Arab starts hearing about explosions in the London Underground. 4th Arab comes to the realization that this he is being set up and freaks out. 4th Arab starts fiddling in his rucksack. 4th Arab sets bomb off and is blown up.

If you hired any additional Arabs and they also got wind of the set up, make sure tere are GPS locators in the rucksacks so you can have police snipers ready to kill them before they can blow the whistle.

  1. After the bombs go off, put out a story for over an hour that the explosions are a simple electrical fault. This gives you cover time to make sure the lazy bus Arab is dead and any other hired Arabs who reneged are also dead. Make sure any CCTV footage that doesn’t support your official story is either seized or destroyed.

  2. A few hours after the bombings, have one of your boys post an ‘Al-Qaeda statement’ claiming responsibility. Don’t worry about the whole ‘misreferencing the Qu’ran’ thing, these idiots don’t have the attention spans to figure it out.

  3. After you have made sure that all the Arabs are dead and you are managing the story accordingly, wait for four days until the police piece together the story and find the explosives you planted in Leeds and in the car in Luton. Remember that Qu’ran and flight manual in the hijackers’ car? Ha ha, they fell for that one hook, line and sinker. No need to change tactics this time either. The time delay will convince the gullible public that a real investigation is taking place. Create a background of the hired Arabs being militant Muslims. The drooling masses, as was the case with the ‘9/11 hijackers,’ will ignore stories of neighbours saying they were the quiet, educated types who liked children and playing sports.

BBC excerpt: One local resident described him as “a nice lad”.

“He liked to play football, he liked to play cricket. I’m shocked.”

Another resident said he was just a “normal kid” who played basketball and kicked a ball around.

  1. Sit back and enjoy as Blair and his minions grandstand in front of television cameras about staying the course in the war on terror. The pay raise, extra agency funding, and power to strip more freedoms and liberties made the ten easy steps to staging a terrorist attack a worthwhile venture. The dozens of dead people were necessary collateral damage. This is a dirty war, we need to be less moral than the terrorists to defeat them.

And that’s how the government staged the bombings in ten easy steps.

Granted, you can interchange different pieces of the puzzle. The bombers could be real terrorists that knew exactly what they were doing. All you would need to do is control the ‘mastermind’ behind the attack and make sure his boys carried out the job in the way you wanted. Voila.

362

[quote]hedo wrote:
Your overwhelming logic has convinced me that the US, Russians, Israeli’s, Spanish and British are all blowing themselves up.[/quote]

“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
Hermann Goering, Transcript of Nuremberg Trials.