Updates on London investigation

[Atlanteax]

I noticed that there was a linked article provided by Drudge

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1690391,00.html

That indicated that the investigation seems to reveal that the explosives involved were of military origin. Possibly smuggled in from the Balkans (leftovers from the war there?).

So obviously, that is a bit worrisome if the terrorists are using military explosive as opposed to homemade.

Meanwhile, it also seems possible that at least one of the bombs involved a suicide bomber (which is somewhat good news, as opposed to them being on the loose again to repeat the attacks).

.

Meanwhile, Drudge has their own article

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3dm.htm

Which indicates that the US military has ordered its troops and their family members to avoid London, citing it to be a security risk.

I am both appalled and ashamed if it holds up to be true.

As it'd effectively equate the situation in London to the security situation in Iraq, which is logically an absurd comparision.

The shame is due to the UK having been the US's staunchest ally, and we'd ended up humiliating them instead by suggesting that London is not safe enough for Americans.

[Leetahkin]

Peh, security risk.
I'd travel to England right now.
Oh, but it said military and their family. How tha hell would anyone know the difference unless they were walking around claiming they were military or family?

Jesus, it's like after 9/11 happened - I wasn't afraid of flying after. I still LOVE it.

[Asha]

Whereas I'll probably never fly again.
Not without drugs and hypnosis at least.

[Leetahkin]

:lol:
Yeah, that's what the flight attendants are demanding after that last incident.

[Gan]

The military travel ban [US] has been lifted as of this morning.

LONDON, England -- An order banning U.S. Air Force personnel at two British bases from traveling to London has been lifted, the U.S. Embassy said on Tuesday.

The Air Force said in a statement it now considered the situation in London "stabilized."

Air Force spokesman Matt Tulis had said earlier that 10,000 military staff at the Mildenhall and Lakenheath bases in Suffolk in eastern England had been told to avoid London because of fears for their safety.


With London being urged to continue as normal despite the city being placed on its highest ever terror alert, CNN's Robyn Curnow said the ban had stirred up controversy in the UK media.
...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/12/britain.bombings.us/index.html

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Nobody Cares
How tha hell would anyone know the difference unless they were walking around claiming they were military or family?



I can tell by the way people walk, haircut and talk that they are military.

[Leetahkin]

Well yes, I shouldn't have included military personnel. Military family would be next to impossible (at least for me) to distinguish from civilian family. It's not as cut and dry.

<--- Dad is ex Army, brother is ex Marine, ex husband is ex Army. I was almost Airforce until they perm. disqualified me. Not to mention Fort Drum was nearly in my back yard growing up.

This bombing has not deterred me from my trip to London at all.

- Arkans

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Nobody Cares
Well yes, I shouldn't have included military personnel. Military family would be next to impossible (at least for me) to distinguish from civilian family. It's not as cut and dry.

<--- Dad is ex Army, brother is ex Marine, ex husband is ex Army. I was almost Airforce until they perm. disqualified me. Not to mention Fort Drum was nearly in my back yard growing up.

agreed family would be hard. I am glad you understand what I was talking about

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Arkans
This bombing has not deterred me from my trip to London at all.

- Arkans

it should not.

fuck them. dont let the enemy stop you from living

[Wezas]

Heard on the radio that the four bombers were London-born and they have are in a Pakistani area of small town in northern London investigating possible leads.

I always get picked out as military, everywhere by all sorts of people. <shrug> and I usually don't carry myself in a military manner off duty

[Leetahkin]

It's the build, the walk, the talk... TOJ had it right.
It's not something you purposefully do, but there are mannerisms ingrained into you, subconscious level.
When you live with/around military, it's easy to spot.

:sucker: <--- Yay for lollipops!

[Nieninque]

Latest news is that four bombers blew themselves up in the blasts.

Three got the train from leeds and met one from Luton.

All four are thought to be British-born.

One man has been arrested in Leeds and is being brought to London to be questioned.

A house has been raided in Leeds and a "harmful substance" was found.

[Jolena]

Anything else about it being Al'Queda linked?

[Nieninque]

The police officer that was talking on the radio was very clear to stress that it was criminals and extremists, to avoid labelling a particular group of the community, but reading through the lines you can probably safely say that it is islamic extremists linked in some way with Al Qaida

[Nieninque]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4674463.stm

click on the Police briefing link

[Atlanteax]

It's a catch-22 in regard to if AQ is involved.

If it can be believably demonstrated that AQ is involved, then it unfortunately indicates that AQ is still able to reach outside the MiddleEast (as due to the combination of US and the initially relunctant Saudi efforts, AQ's reach is now primarily contained to SA and Iraq).

.

If it is proven to be otherwise, just some offshoot terrorist group (I doubt it'll be a simple as they were just criminals), then that is also "bad" as it demonstrates that AQ has completely disintegrated into autnomonous cells (good because the overall threat has diminished, no risk of another grand 9/11 attack, but bad because it'll be a lot harder to detect/inflitate) or that other indepedent cells/groups are deciding to follow the AQ example "in jihad".

.

On one hand, I hope that it is AQ so that the War on Terrorism recieves renewed focus, as I do not think that the EU is taking the issue as seriously as the US is, even after Madrid, out of some naive belief that Europe is not really the target but the US is. Now it seems more inevitable that the EU will fall in line with the US and take a more heavy-handed approach to the MiddleEast.

On the other hand, I hope it's not AQ, so that it strengthens and encourage the recent EU trend of cracking down on immigration and their refusal to integrate into European society. This is most noticable in France with the government's effort to ban certain Muslim clothing in the public schools (to intregrate the Muslim children into French society at an early age).

This also would help reverse the document trend that more and more Muslims are starting to form their own seperate communities within Europe and refusing to join the rest of society. Several years ago, prominent scholars (those who research and study culture, etc) indicated that they did not see such a thing as an issue, but then a few years ago were starting to see that it had a strong potential to be a problem, and now seem to be in consensus that it is a threat.

I am hoping to see reforms in the EU (and in the US) that targets such isolated community in a manner to force them to integrate into the rest of society. As it is behaviorally easier to take hostilities against a society that you are not a part of (such as all you know is the Islam way of life, and are being taught that all other way of life is *wrong* and is a threat to your way of life).

Integration is a must, and I hope to see the EU collectively slam it borders close, and only allow selective immigration (folks can still immigrate from the ME, but if they meet certain qualifications). I also hope this renews US efforts in regard to the Mexican border where groups such as (I forget the group's name, but it's a volunteer organization that helps patrol the border) will be actively supported by the government, nevermind increase border patrol funding.

[Nieninque]

Do you believe the stuff you post?
Just curious.

Speaking of the UK, generally different cultures end up in their own little community because they arent readily accepted and supported in wider society as well as in their own. They tend to become ghettoised for want of a better word. Forcing them to be integrated will work how?
What are you going to do?

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Do you believe the stuff you post?
Just curious.

Speaking of the UK, generally different cultures end up in their own little community because they arent readily accepted and supported in wider society as well as in their own. They tend to become ghettoised for want of a better word. Forcing them to be integrated will work how?
What are you going to do?

Yes, I do believe what I post.

And yes, the ghetto phenomen has been a demonstrated problem particularly in France, made worse by the nation-wide high unemployment rate. Of which, it is primarily Arab Muslim youth that is unemployed, and I last recall a figure stating about 40%.

Obviously the short-term fix would be to stop Arab Muslims from immigrating in, as a 40% rate (while native white French youth are at 15% or so in comparison, last I recall) proves that no one is hiring them as opposed to others, possibly due to that they do not have the skills employers desire.

Perhaps they do not have the desired skills because their insular communities will not allow them to gain such skills (ie, not going to French public schools, but their own).

Unfortunately for the French secular government, unless they take concrete steps (reducing poverty can only take place once there is job creation, and most jobs will grab those more qualified and have the skills required) to alleivate this problem, they're setting on a long-term bomb that could erupt into a non-insignant civil crisis.

Editted to add this paragraph:

Perhaps another solution is to start deporting individuals out. It would not be "politically correct" but it could be a pragmatic solution.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Atlanteax]

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Do you believe the stuff you post?
Just curious.

Speaking of the UK, generally different cultures end up in their own little community because they arent readily accepted and supported in wider society as well as in their own. They tend to become ghettoised for want of a better word. Forcing them to be integrated will work how?
What are you going to do?

They don't integrate themselves because A) they don't want to and B) don't have to. With some many immigrants in the country now they have their own communities and don't have to worry about integrating with the "natives".

[Nieninque]

Cant say I blame them sometimes

[Sean of the Thread]

My sister leaves manana for London. I'm sure it is safer now then it was 2 weeks ago. <shrugs>

[Warriorbird]

Yeah, my parents and sister will be flying back through on the return leg of their current trip. I can't say that on some level I am not worried, but I agree, security is probably much tighter.

[JadeScarlet]

Well, my first international flight on my own was scheduled to leave 9/13/2001. I had only been out of the country twice before that, once on a family trip to Canada, and once on a school trip to Europe.

I was delayed for a week. I arrived in Scotland the following Thursday night got up early friday morning to go see my advisor and choose my courses, had the weekend to go shopping for stuff I needed, and started class on Monday. I didn't know anyone, because I had missed all of the introductory parties as well as the freshers faire.

Starting school in a foreign country where its difficult to understand the accent was frustrating, and I got really depressed in the first 3 weeks, but eventually found a group of magic players and got over it.

But the flying part never bothered me at all.

Even now living in London when one of the bomb sites is a block away, I'm still not bothered about taking the underground or the bus anywhere. I see it as the same as being afraid of any kind of accident or getting mugged. In fact I'm probably more likely to be mugged while walking home than be blown up on a bus anyway. So I still prefer taking the bus.

According to one of my friends, the traditional British evacuation is to be ordered out of the building, then walk down to the pub and have a few drinks with the boss until its safe to go back in, by which point everyone is too tipsy to work and is sent home.

[Asha]

According to one of my friends, the traditional British evacuation is to be ordered out of the building, then walk down to the pub and have a few drinks with the boss until its safe to go back in, by which point everyone is too tipsy to work and is sent home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hehe so true.

[Wezas]

London on alert again as Underground lines and stations are closed following reports of explosions and smoke (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4703777.stm)

[Skeeter]

This sounds like copycat attention whore type stuff. Be interesting to see how it plays out.

I heard it was a nail bomb on the radio while driving to work. I thought they meant a mail bomb, but apparently they meant the kind with a bunch of nails that go flying when it explodes.

Who knows if that's the case...the first news folk to report the story seem to often provide an inaccurate description..

[xtc]

I was watching BBC World News this morning and it seems there were 4 bombs 3 of which did minimal damage. The fourth was a nail bomb on the subway, so far no info was forthcoming on that bomb and the damage caused.

I'm just wondering how this can be allowed to happen so soon after the previous bombing.

1. London has a ton of cameras
2. England should be experts at dealing with this as they are veterans of the IRA terrorist attacks.

This makes me ridiculously sad. Now, since this has been linked to fundamentalist and extremist Islam.. Have the Mosques and Islam faith based orginizations denounced these attacks?

- Arkans

[JadeScarlet]

I know they denounced the first ones. No one official has made any statements about today, but it seems like the bombs weren't as powerful, and there have been significantly fewer injuries. One went off on a bus that had no people on it other than the driver it seems.

Warren St. is within a few blocks and the whole area is covered in police tape. The pub on the corner was packed with people.

I think that this confirms my previous statement that the first thing the British due when evacuated is head to the pub.

Who denounced it though? Was it a large and respected religious leader? Some guy no one ever heard of? Someone that would have influence? Where did you hear that it was denounced?

- Arkans

[xtc]

Originally posted by Arkans
Who denounced it though? Was it a large and respected religious leader? Some guy no one ever heard of? Someone that would have influence? Where did you hear that it was denounced?

- Arkans

Arkans my Uncle is the Chairman of the Muslim Council for the Conservative Party in England. He has been working with other influencial Muslims in England for a few years now promoting moderate Islam.

I haven't had a chance to speak to him since the July 7 attack because he has been so busy however I spoke to his wife. Muslim Religious, Business, and Political leaders have spoken with one voice in condemning the July 7 attacks. He was also one of the people that met with Tony Blair about this.

I can't speak to these attacks as it is too early but I imagine the message from the Muslim leaders will be the same.

Heh, I had no idea that you had family in that type of position!

Anyway, I'm glad that there has been a one, unifying voice, from influencial and moderate Muslims condeming these attacks. It will go a long way if the young Muslim of today hears the voice of the older Muslims of yesterday reafirming that these types of attacks are NOT Islam.

Honestly though, moderate Islam needs their own charismatic speakers that can appeal to Muslim youth just as radical Islam has theirs.

- Arkans

[xtc]

Originally posted by Arkans
Heh, I had no idea that you had family in that type of position!

Anyway, I'm glad that there has been a one, unifying voice, from influencial and moderate Muslims condeming these attacks. It will go a long way if the young Muslim of today hears the voice of the older Muslims of yesterday reafirming that these types of attacks are NOT Islam.

Honestly though, moderate Islam needs their own charismatic speakers that can appeal to Muslim youth just as radical Islam has theirs.

- Arkans

Politics and Business seems to run in their blood. Man is a bloody workoholic gets up at 4 am everyday.

The problem is there will be those who will praise the attacks, I imagine especially in the poorer sectors. I think the Imams in many Mosques will be monitored in the coming weeks, months, and years.

I personally have resisted getting involved because I don't consider myself a Muslim. To many extremist Muslims I would be considering a traitor for not personally adopting Islam. Recently I have been wondering if there was something I could do personally.

[Jadewolff]

Originally posted by Arkans
Who denounced it though? Was it a large and respected religious leader? Some guy no one ever heard of? Someone that would have influence? Where did you hear that it was denounced?

- Arkans

Does it really matter that much? Why is it that everytime there is one small group of muslims that pull shit like this, all the other muslim groups have to scramble to defend themselves.

I'm sure they will in their own time but by putting so much pressure on this, you're making it seem like if they haven't said something right away, they must be sympathetic to the terrorists.

Edited to add: Anytime there's any type of violence like this, I'm tempted to apologize for mankind in general. That's why I think it's unfair to single out musilm organizations.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Jadewolff]

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Jadewolff]

[Latrinsorm]

They had an English news station on the TV where I have lunch today. Firstly, I'm glad that very few people were hurt. Second, it's *astounding* how much better their reporters are than ours.

Why is it important for them to defend themselves? Well, because we've been told countless times that "This is not Islam" the war is not "against Islam" "most Muslims do not support this" "Not all terrorists are Muslim".

Listen, the recent terror attacks have all been the fault of Muslim radicals. No matter how you cut it. It's their fanatic idealogy that leads them to these attacks as well as their charismatic leaders that expound the garbage that says this is the true way of Islam.

If we have moderate, REAL Muslims speaking out against these types of attacks and values then not only will the world be reassured, but the younger generation will have a different voice to listen. Use your head.

- Arkans

There are moderate muslims speaking out. They just aren't newsworthy

[Gan]

I said as much in a different thread relating to terrorism and was corrected. It seems the Muslim community is denouncing the attacks, its just 'newsworthy' like RD1 said.

[longshot]

Originally posted by Arkans


If we have moderate, REAL Muslims speaking out against these types of attacks and values then not only will the world be reassured, but the younger generation will have a different voice to listen. Use your head.

- Arkans

But the "moderates" you speak of would not be following the true word of the Koran, according to the extremists.

They would then be considered a traitor to the faith, and an acceptable target for elimination.

It doesn't matter how many moderates there are if the pathway to extremism is a clearly lit and justifiable path. Further, a small and dedicated minority with institutionalized violence will not ever give into the "infidel" ways of moderate muslims.

The extremists are loyal to those that pay their bills... those at the top of the human pyramid of oil wealth. Those at the bottom are purposefully deprived of education and a future to have a ready supply of jihadists soldiers at their disposal. Shutting down an entire country's transportation system cost them a few lousy lives...

The "moderates" are simply happy leaching off of the UK and other Western institutions. They speak out because they enjoy the benefits of sucking the blood out of democracy and its liberalized institutions. Universities, hospitals, medical care, social services, and every other good thing that political Islam cannot provide.

I'm not saying the "War on Terror" is the right way to correct the problem, but Western soceity has been under attack for a long time by a lot of people with next to nothing to lose.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by longshot]

[Back]

Originally posted by longshot
But the "moderates" you speak of would not be following the true word of the Koran, according to the extremists.

They would then be considered a traitor to the faith, and an acceptable target for elimination.

It doesn't matter how many moderates there are if the pathway to extremism is a clearly lit and justifiable path. Further, a small and dedicated minority with institutionalized violence will not ever give into the "infidel" ways of moderate muslims.

The extremists are loyal to those that pay their bills... those at the top of the human pyramid of oil wealth. Those at the bottom are purposefully deprived of education and a future to have a ready supply of jihadists soldiers at their disposal. Shutting down an entire country's transportation system cost them a few lousy lives...

The "moderates" are simply happy leaching off of the UK and other Western institutions. They speak out because they enjoy the benefits of sucking the blood out of democracy and its liberalized institutions. Universities, hospitals, medical care, social services, and every other good thing that political Islam cannot provide.

I'm not saying the "War on Terror" is the right way to correct the problem, but Western soceity has been under attack for a long time by a lot of people with next to nothing to lose.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by longshot]

Are you pointing to a caste war? When you speak of extremes, you mention people with nothing to lose fighting those that have a lot to lose.

Do the people with more get the more from oppressing those who have less? Does oppression make the oppressed stronger? In a world where the goal in life is to be more cutthroat than your neighbor not an influence in this kind of behavior?

[longshot]

Originally posted by Backlash


Are you pointing to a caste war? When you speak of extremes, you mention people with nothing to lose fighting those that have a lot to lose.

Do the people with more get the more from oppressing those who have less? Does oppression make the oppressed stronger? In a world where the goal in life is to be more cutthroat than your neighbor not an influence in this kind of behavior?

It's like a huge pyramid scheme. The top is filled by the sheiks getting filthy rich off their oil rents and the religious elite.

They starve the massess of education by giving them a book of violence and hatred to memorize in place of an education. Then, all they have to do is give them the "infidel" in whatever he conveniently needs to be... Christian, Jew, American,... etc.

Since this thread is about updates on the investigation, I think it's interesting that the guy the police killed today is not middle Eastern, but rather Asian. While this could mean that he's a Pakistani, he very well could also be Indonesian, Malaysian, or even Chinese. The American ideal of a Muslim extremist is flawed, in that it is limited to Arabs. If anything good comes out of this latest event, I hope that the mold of Muslim extremist can be enlargened to include all types... and not just "towelheads". I'm using this word for reference to an American stereotype... if mods have issue, then change it.

As this investigation unfolds, I can only hope that people begin to realize several things:

1. While moderate Muslims may be active participants in a democratic society, and some may even assimilate, the pathway to extremism and Jihad is well defined. The time it takes will depend on circumstances, but the channels for training and justification for violence exist in the very core of the religion. The people in the first wave of attacks were well considered, "normal". The people who knew them well said they were against it, but that "They understood why". I'm paraphrazing this from the New York Times...

2. Islamic extremism is not a Middle Eastern phenomenon. It doesn't make the news when people are murdered in cold blood in Southern Thailand because the Malaysian terrorist does not readily fit the American terrorist archetype. There was even an Algerian born Frenchman, pure French blood, Al Qaeda operative arrested in Japan while I was there. From Islamic Chinese (Uighurs) to Indian Muslim extremist... From Chechyn rebel to Phillippino guerrilla seperatist... From Sudanese Junjaweed to the crazy British guy that converted while in prison... the face of terrorist needs broadening.

3. With the exception of South America, there is a continual battle of the civilized world against Islam on every continent.

We here in the US have to surrender an incredible deal of civil liberties so that beacons of intolerence and hatred can continue on our soil. We accept this as the cost of doing business now. The Patriot Act is about to become a permanent fixture of American law.

4. Democracy is fundamentally incompatable with Islam. Unfortunately, this will cost us tens of thousands of American lives and billions of dollars that could be used here at home to learn this lesson.

This is not intended to be racist in any way.
The four points I listed, to me, should be at least debated. They should not be taboo, and our liberal instincts to say that "people are people" might not work in this scenario.

You're welcome to disagree, of course.

I look forward to the results of this investigation, because I think it will confirm that this is not some highly organized, highly skilled minority entity. It doesn't have to be the "Al Qaeda" boogeyman. Rather, it's more of a massive movement with huge, violent undercurrents of that are finally beginning to reach the surface of a generally accepting Muslim population. That is what I think we will learn from this.

[Edited on 22-7-05 by Miss X]

I think you're rather on the characteristics of the Islamic Religion Longshot. In fact, I'd say the reality of the religion is the direct opposition to what you're saying.

I would seriously suggest looking more into the roots of the religion and just now it's been perverted. The same thing you're saying can easily be said about christianity, judaism or any other non eastern religion (and probably has).

Of course, that means very little in a realistic standpoint where the majority of our security concerns begin and end with muslim practioners but I'd have to say that's more of a coincidence to the fact that islam is more readily accepted by those disenfranchised around the world (and if it truly were such a violent and unforgiving religion you'd have to seriously ask yourself why)

Just my suggestion of course.

[longshot]

Originally posted by RangerD1
I think you're rather on the characteristics of the Islamic Religion Longshot. In fact, I'd say the reality of the religion is the direct opposition to what you're saying.
I would seriously suggest looking more into the roots of the religion and just now it's been perverted. The same thing you're saying can easily be said about christianity, judaism or any other non eastern religion (and probably has).

I agree that what has been said can be applied to any religion at some point in history.

Perverted or not, we are seeing "normal" people turn violent to the point of justifying suicide. While some condemn, there is far too much of this, "but I understand why" for me to feel really comfortable with this idea of a peaceful entity. I believe it is highly oppressive in all forms.


Originally posted by RangerD1
I'd have to say that's more of a coincidence to the fact that islam is more readily accepted by those disenfranchised around the world (and if it truly were such a violent and unforgiving religion you'd have to seriously ask yourself why)



This is where I disagree. I think it's violent outlets are exactly why it is embraced by the disenfranchised.

Turning the other cheek doesn't have the sell points of glory for allah, wealth beyond your wildest dreams, and all the pussy that you never got while you were a mortal human.

Much better to fight back at the "evil" of the world, than smile and take it. Even if that means blowing off your own head to kill some poor person who happened to be sitting next to you on the subway.

I think the four things I wrote above should be at least debated. They should not be taboo subjects, and people should be able to discuss them and express their views without fear of a five page letter stabbed into their back in the middle of the street in Amsterdam.

[Back]

How does that apply to the japanese “kamakazi”, where honor dictates amongst the samurai that death is “honorable” and that dishonor meant taking one’s own life? Hari-kari.

Suicide bombers are not unique to our century. I’d be really interested to hear the motivation from an Islamic Jihadist the rationale behind what it means. 72 virgins and all the ice cream you can eat seems a little westernized as a motive.

[Back]

On topic... I just read this story (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=3&u=/nm/20050723/wl_nm/security_britain_dc) that says the man shot by police in London was a Brazilian electrician who had nothing to do with the bombings.

God that sucks.

[Ilvane]

Yeah he came out of the building they were monitoring. It also said he ran through the turnstiles, didn't respond when asked to stop, and was acting suspicious. Sometimes the cops have to do what they have to do.

I feel sorry for his family, but why not just stop?

-A

[Miss X]

The whole thing is disgusting. An eye witness of the incident has come forward and said she saw the police tackle the man and they had him secured on the ground, then just pumped the bullets into him.

I've always felt uncomfortable about the idea of giving police guns, too many of them have guns and obviously no restraint when using them. I mean are they going to consider every non-white person in London a suspected bomber? A shoot-to-kill policy is just stupid, if they are adopting that then they might as well introduce the death penalty here.

[Asha]

"There is only one sure way to stop a suicide bomber determined to fulfil his mission -- destroy his brain instantly, utterly. That means shooting him with devastating power in the head, killing him immediately"

Don't act suspicious even in the slightest.
These police are scared, not very well informed and cleared to execute you.
That, is absolutely terrifying.

[Nieninque]

And yet if they missed someone they could have stopped and a bomb went off, you would criticise them for that too

[Asha]

I haven't criticised them at all so far, Nieninque.
I have nothing but respect for them after the clear up operations and rescues they've performed.
Also if it wasn't for them we'd surely have been in alot more trouble by now.

I wanted to point out how frightening the situation is right now. If I was a foreigner in London, say from Afganistan, I'd be so scared I'd never leave my house.
You seem to automaticly assume the worst about me, though.
:(

[Asha]

Okay so I criticised them a little bit.
But you're not correct when you say I'd do so if they missed a bomber.
I think it's pretty near impossible since they're hell bent on murdering us all.

[Miss X]

I think there is justification for criticising the police in this instance. They are responsible for a terrible tragedy. I mean, looking at the situation from the victims point of view, these were police in plain clothes, not uniform, with guns. Why should he automatically trust that they are police when we have terrorists running around the city? I probably would have tried to run from them too.

The police and all the emergency services should of course be commended for their amazing effort cleaning up after the bombings, but that does not excuse their behaviour in this instance. Don't give them a license to kill anyone who looks suspicious. We've just seen the damage that does.

The sad thing is, for myself and everyone I have spoken with about it, if we were worried about going in to the city before because of terrorists, we're fucking terrified of going now, because of the police.

[Skirmisher]

There must always be room for criticism of those in authority.

No one says that police do not have a very difficult job.

I'm sure everyone is appreciative to them for putting their health and lives on the line every day to help protect us all.

But when such a mistake occurs it is not only our right, but our duty to demand to know how and why such a tragedy was allowed to come to pass.

It's possible that the victim bears a great deal of responsibility in this situation but if we do not demand an accounting how can we know?

The police cannot do their job if the public has no faith in them, so it is in the best interest of us all to find out what is wrong to allow these things to happen and try our best to make sure it does not happen again.

[Nieninque]

Without a doubt. No-one has said that they are above justifyig their actions, in fact they serve the general public, so are always accountable for their actions.

There is a big gap, however between asking them to be held accountable for their actions, and "These police are scared, not very well informed and cleared to execute you. "

What happened to this man was an awful tragedy.
However, the police believed him to be directly involved in terrorist activities. Eyewitnesses at the time thought they saw a "bomb belt" on him.
What would you have had the police do?
Let him go and hope that the intelligence and eyewitnesses were wrong?
It is an awful thing to have happened, but the Police have the shittiest of jobs to do at the moment.

[Asha]

If I saw a guy in the middle of busy London with a belt around him, with wires all hooked up to his waist and hands, I'd say ''Dude, calmdown''.

But no, let's blow his brainout.

/jk

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Drayal
If I saw a guy in the middle of busy London with a belt around him, with wires all hooked up to his waist and hands, I'd say ''Dude, calmdown''.

But no, let's blow his brainout.

/jk

That's probably the most ridiculous thing I have read from you.

What if you had bumped into one of the 8 bombers there have been in London so far?

"Dude, calm down"

Reckon that would have changed anything?

I dont.

I repeat, it was a tragedy what happened to this man, and there need to be some serious questions asked of the intelligence gathering aspect of what went on.

In terms of what to do when faced with a suspected suicide bomber heading for a busy train...I cant think of a peaceful way of resolving that which doesnt lead to many deaths.

[Asha]

/jk = joke.

Nien, I've not thought anything you said has not been true.
Just understand, I'm not a totally crazy fuck, I just can't take total terror. So I make it light hearted.
I'm terrified of suicide bombers.

[Terminator X]

The police in London don't have the shittiest right job right now.

The guy who actually defends the agency's actions who employ these cocksuckers does.

[Asha]

The guy who actually defends the agency's actions who employ these cocksuckers does.
--------------------
Tx


You call our police cocksuckers?
WTF? That deserves deeding your character, man.

[Terminator X]

No disrespect to the higher-ups, but in general, I place a way higher importance on the role of the police officer's job who actually has to put their life at stake in order to defend ridiculous government policy.

Through my life I have seen countless examples of officers who have gone above and beyond to do their job and those who simply have not.

Never, ever, ever can a policy be mandated that would actually cause a good cop or cops to lose instinct and actually commit this serious of a crime. You don't defend your country's livelihood by unloading a full clip into a man on his way to work.

[Back]

Its important to remember that the Brazilian would most likely not have died this way if it wasn’t for the suicide bombers who killed over 50 people and shattered many more people’s lives.

[Nieninque]

8.30am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bomb police hold four men

Press Association
Wednesday July 27, 2005


Police at Hay Mills in Birmingham, where detectives investigating the July 21 bomb attacks in London made an arrest under the Terrorism Act. Three men were arrested at another address in the city. Photograph: Rui Vieira/PA


Four men were arrested at two addresses in Birmingham today by police investigating the failed bomb attacks in London on July 21.
The raids are thought to be of major significance in the hunt for the bombers, and there were unconfirmed reports that one of the men arrested in the raids is believed to be one of the four men wanted in connection with last week's bomb attacks.

West Midlands police said all four men had been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 and that a suspect package was found during one of the raids in the east of the city.

A West Midlands police spokesman confirmed that one suspect had been shot with a Taser stun gun during one of the raids, although no firearms were discharged.

Detectives have been working round the clock to track down the four amid fears they may try and launch another attack. Those fears were heightened by evidence that they had access to more explosive material and may have returned to the bomb-making flat they used in New Southgate, north London, after Thursday's botched suicide bombings.

One of the men held in this morning's raids - the one thought to be a member of the gang involved in last week's attacks - was taken to Paddington Green police station in central London, where all key terror suspects are held.

The raids took place at about 4.30am and were a joint operation between West Midlands police, the security services and the Metropolitan police anti-terrorist branch.

A West Midlands police spokesman said a search warrant was executed at addresses in Heybarnes Road, Hay Mills, where one man was "Tasered" during the operation to arrest him. He has been taken into custody to a central London police station. A second warrant was executed at Bankdale Road, Washwood Heath, shortly afterwards and three men were arrested at this address and taken into custody in the West Midlands police force area, the spokesman added.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1536957,00.html

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Bomb police hold four menThat's "for"... er, nm. (Harmnone: this is a joke.)

Good to know y'all caught the guys. :)

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Arkans
Who denounced it though? Was it a large and respected religious leader? Some guy no one ever heard of? Someone that would have influence? Where did you hear that it was denounced?

- Arkans

U.S. Muslims issue anti-terrorism 'fatwa' (Yes of course I'm a link so click it already) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050728/us_nm/security_usa_muslims_dc)

REUTERS

By Romney Willson1 hour, 13 minutes ago

Top U.S. Muslim scholars issued a "fatwa," or religious edict, against terrorism on Thursday and called on Muslims to help authorities fight the scourge of militant violence.

The fatwa was part of efforts by U.S. Muslims to counter perceived links between Islam and terrorism and avert any negative backlash after this month's bombings by suspected Islamic extremists in London and Egypt.

"Having our religious scholars side by side with our community leaders leaves no room for anybody to suggest that Islam and Muslims condone or support any forms or acts of terrorism," said Esam Omeish, president of the Muslim American Society, one of the groups which announced the fatwa.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesperson for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said it was the first time Muslims in North America had issued an anti-terrorism edict, although they had repeatedly condemned such acts of violence.

American Muslims this month launched a nationwide advertising campaign in which they declared that those who committed terrorism in the name of Islam were betraying the teachings of the Koran.

Muslim organizations say they have not so far detected any widespread reaction against their community after the most recent bombings.

Hooper said Thursday's religious ruling, issued by the Fiqh Council of North America, said: "We clearly and strongly state (that) all acts of terrorism targeting civilians are 'haram' (forbidden) in Islam."

"It is 'haram' for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence, and it is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians," he quoted the ruling as saying.

The Fiqh Council is an association of Islamic legal scholars that interprets Islamic religious law. Hooper said it was the only one of its kind in North America.

Some 130 North American Muslim organizations and leaders have signed and endorsed the fatwa.

Similar anti-terrorism fatwas have been issued by other Muslim communities. After the bombings in London religious leaders from about 500 British mosques issued such an edict and presented it to local politicians.

According to Islam, only responsible, religious authorities which are recognized by a Muslim community may issue fatwas. Many Muslims say extremists such as Osama bin Laden have given these edicts a bad name in the West because they have used them without authorization and to call for acts such as murder.

Because Islam is not based on a world-wide hierarchical structure, the edicts are not globally binding, and only affect the community whose religious leaders have issued the rulings. (additional reporting by Caroline Drees)

[xtc]

Originally posted by longshot

Originally posted by RangerD1
I think you're rather on the characteristics of the Islamic Religion Longshot. In fact, I'd say the reality of the religion is the direct opposition to what you're saying.
I would seriously suggest looking more into the roots of the religion and just now it's been perverted. The same thing you're saying can easily be said about christianity, judaism or any other non eastern religion (and probably has).

I agree that what has been said can be applied to any religion at some point in history.

Perverted or not, we are seeing "normal" people turn violent to the point of justifying suicide. While some condemn, there is far too much of this, "but I understand why" for me to feel really comfortable with this idea of a peaceful entity. I believe it is highly oppressive in all forms.


Originally posted by RangerD1
I'd have to say that's more of a coincidence to the fact that islam is more readily accepted by those disenfranchised around the world (and if it truly were such a violent and unforgiving religion you'd have to seriously ask yourself why)



This is where I disagree. I think it's violent outlets are exactly why it is embraced by the disenfranchised.

Turning the other cheek doesn't have the sell points of glory for allah, wealth beyond your wildest dreams, and all the pussy that you never got while you were a mortal human.

Much better to fight back at the "evil" of the world, than smile and take it. Even if that means blowing off your own head to kill some poor person who happened to be sitting next to you on the subway.

I think the four things I wrote above should be at least debated. They should not be taboo subjects, and people should be able to discuss them and express their views without fear of a five page letter stabbed into their back in the middle of the street in Amsterdam.


Longshot you don't know the first thing about Islam beyond what you see on television.

[xtc]

Originally posted by longshot
But the "moderates" you speak of would not be following the true word of the Koran, according to the extremists.

It is the extremists who are not following the Koran.


The "moderates" are simply happy leaching off of the UK and other Western institutions. They speak out because they enjoy the benefits of sucking the blood out of democracy and its liberalized institutions. Universities, hospitals, medical care, social services, and every other good thing that political Islam cannot provide.

This has to be one of this most ignorant and incorrect things I have read on these boards. Research your history, political Islam created the first Universities and the first Constitution. They also created incredible medical manuscripts, among other things.

In Canada some of the most forward thinking bio-tech and hi-tech companies are owned by Muslims. Far from leaching of society, they create jobs, infrastructure and money for their country.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
Research your history, political Islam created the first Universities and the first Constitution.I'm pretty sure the Greeks would have something to say about this.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by xtc
Research your history, political Islam created the first Universities and the first Constitution.I'm pretty sure the Greeks would have something to say about this.

Certainly Greeks had schools however the first University was an Islamic one.

LINK (http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030501.html)

The First Written Constitution was the Constitution of Medina.

LINK (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=1bmi9e4u765nt?method=4&dsid=222 2&dekey=Constitution+of+Medina&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1 &sbid=lc02a&linktext=Constitution%20of%20Medina )

[Edited on 7-28-2005 by xtc]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by xtc
Certainly Greeks had schools however the first University was an Islamic one.

LINK (http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030501.html)

First university != oldest university.

Oldest university means the oldest one still around.

http://www.answers.com/topic/plato-philosopher


Plato, originally named Aristocles (Plato means "broad-shouldered"), was one of the early stars of Western philosophy. The student of another great Greek thinker, Socrates, Plato founded the Academy in his native Athens in 387 B.C.; it became a famous hotbed of philosophical and scientific discussion, the first known university in the world.

Raven

edited to add that the first known written constitution does not make it the first constitution either considering the number of cultures that had verbal traditions.

[Edited on 7-28-2005 by Ravenstorm]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by xtc
Certainly Greeks had schools however the first University was an Islamic one.

LINK (http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030501.html)

First university != oldest university.

Oldest university means the oldest one still around.

http://www.answers.com/topic/plato-philosopher


Plato, originally named Aristocles (Plato means "broad-shouldered"), was one of the early stars of Western philosophy. The student of another great Greek thinker, Socrates, Plato founded the Academy in his native Athens in 387 B.C.; it became a famous hotbed of philosophical and scientific discussion, the first known university in the world.

Raven

edited to add that the first known written constitution does not make it the first constitution either considering the number of cultures that had verbal traditions.

[Edited on 7-28-2005 by Ravenstorm]

The matter of who had the first University is a matter of Academic debate. Many people don't believe that the Greek's institutions qualified as a University.

"The Islamic empire extended from Spain to Asia after the Arabs conquered Egypt in 640 AD, and brought Islam to it. 'Al Azhar', the first university in the world, and the greatest center of Islamic studies was then built in Egypt, which was ruled by Muslims. "

LINK (http://www.spiritual.com.au/articles/religion/islam_ffares.htm)

The oral traditions don't qualify as a Constitution.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by xtc
The matter of who had the first University is a matter of Academic debate. Many people don't believe that the Greek's institutions qualified as a University.

And many do. So that invalidates your claim as much as you say it supports it. When the experts agree, we'll talk further.

And the rights and responsibilities of a nation's citizens are just as binding in oral traditions as written ones.

Raven

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by xtc

The matter of who had the first University is a matter of Academic debate. Many people don't believe that the Greek's institutions qualified as a University.

"The Islamic empire extended from Spain to Asia after the Arabs conquered Egypt in 640 AD, and brought Islam to it. 'Al Azhar', the first university in the world, and the greatest center of Islamic studies was then built in Egypt, which was ruled by Muslims. "

LINK (http://www.spiritual.com.au/articles/religion/islam_ffares.htm)

The oral traditions don't qualify as a Constitution.

To me the debate is not as important as the fact that the world has a great deal of the informatiuon it does BECAUSE of the Islamic centers of higher learning and the great importance placed on them and the collecting of as many books on as wide a range of subjects as they could.

Which was a "real" university or which was oldest are negligible points when weighed against the importance of the vast amount of history and learning that was reabsorbed once the western european nations were able to once again support true centers of higher learning.