Bomb attacks in london (1 Viewer)

[spiritualtramp]

back on topic they seem to have maybe caught some people.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13385127,00.html

lets hope they do a better job then the birmingham 6.

Oh they certainly will.

Remember all the red tops going mental about so and so fundamentalist cleric being given asylum in Britain rather than told to feck off? The reason the UK government let them in was to monitor them very closely and to see who they were liasing with.

I suspect they have a pretty good idea who did this attack.

 

[Latex lizzie]

..eh I do. I think most people here have valid arguments on this issue because the truth is no one can speak with any certainty until many years from now when all the doccuments are leaked and declassified, and the whole thing plays out and we see the U.S' real perspective.

 

[Latex lizzie]

*group hug*

 

[kraster]

What's in a name? the intent and policy of like minded terrorists was there before 9/11 they were the ones who chose to name their organisation after the fact and carried out their deeds nonetheless. So I'm in a band the last three months that doesn't have a name yet. We are writing songs and planning things. We will have a name but the song remains the same. 'scuse the terrible analogy.This is a music forum!

Agreed. But the whole shtick about dismantling terrorist networks by Bush and co. seems to suggest some grand organisation of terrorists with a central command led by Bin Laden. This simply isn't true. And while the world is focused on this imaginary organisation and using such organisations as their Basis for invading countries the world will remain in great danger. We must attack the underlying causes of terrorism.

 

[spiritualtramp]

We must attack the underlying causes of terrorism.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/09/london.attacks.blair.ap/

 

[kraster]

"British Prime Minister Tony Blair said it is crucial to address terrorism's underlying causes, which he identified as deprivation, lack of democracy and ongoing conflict in the Middle East."

Now that's rich coming from Blair,

 

[aoboa]

"British Prime Minister Tony Blair said it is crucial to address terrorism's underlying causes, which he identified as deprivation, lack of democracy and ongoing conflict in the Middle East."

Now that's rich coming from Blair,

It's true though and all those things were sponsored and supported by the west over the last 100 years in order to keep the middle east down.
The last thing the west wanted was REAL democracy in the middle east and so they supported muderous regiemes and dictators. If there was real democracy the middle east would have been able to take control of their own affairs and tell the west to f**k off.
Unfortuately, western foreign policy over the last 100 years has come back and bitten them on the arse by leading to massive unrest and the rise of radical Islam in the face of no other alternative i.e. democracy (and not the western sanctioned and controlled democracy they're touting now which is a bigger insult to radical islam than what existed before).

 

[steve albino]

<quote>Hugh: I suppose the point I was getting at is that John Pilger (and zmag etc etc) have a specific political outlook on this that means it is in their interest to convince people that it is deliberate ... in much the same way that the American military will try to convince us that it isn't (after they have given up trying to convince us that it isn't happening obviously). It's kind of like listening to what Kevin Myers has to say about Northern Ireland. You have to read it and interepret it with this in mind ....</quote>

Ok, point taken Hugh. What kind of source would you consider as unbiased or with a less specific political outlook? Amnesty? Human rights watch? The UN? Got any recommendations? I'd be really interested to know, cheers.

 

[Latex lizzie]

this is good place...

http://www.watchingamerica.com/torontostar000001.html

 

[Latex lizzie]

this is the way the guardian sees it...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/comment/story/0,16141,1528127,00.html

In the grim days since last week's bombing of London, the bulk of Britain's political class and media has distinguished itself by a wilful and dangerous refusal to face up to reality. Just as it was branded unpatriotic in the US after the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington to talk about the link with American policy in the Middle East, so those who have raised the evident connection between the London atrocities and Britain's role in Iraq and Afghanistan have been denounced as traitors. And anyone who has questioned Tony Blair's echo of George Bush's fateful words on September 11 that this was an assault on freedom and our way of life has been treated as an apologist for terror.

continues...

 

[Latex lizzie]

prison planet funny guys.

How the Government Staged the London Bombings in Ten Easy Steps
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet | July 13 2005

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/130705teneasysteps.htm

see also http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/120705stationclosures.htm

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.

7) 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.

8) 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.

9) 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.



10) 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.

 

[hugh]

Ok, point taken Hugh. What kind of source would you consider as unbiased or with a less specific political outlook? Amnesty? Human rights watch? The UN? Got any recommendations? I'd be really interested to know, cheers.

I don't think thre is any easy answer to this question. All media outlets and commentators are inevitably subject to an element of bias. This could be personal, institutional, cultural, political, or whatever. However, I also think there is a distinction between reporting and documenting objective facts/events, and providing analysis/interpretation of these events (though as I understand it postmodernists would not recognise this distinction).

It should, in my opinion, be possible to minimise bias when it comes to doing the first thing (e.g. "A Car Bomb Exploded in Baghdad Today Killing 27 People", "US Soldiers Shot Dead Two Unarmed Iraqis At A Checkpoint Yesterday") and the sources you mentioned above (e.g. Human Rights Watch etc.) would seem to me to be about the best bet for that. When it comes to analysis/interpretation though, they quite rightly don't engage in that. They will say that inadequate procedures are in place at checkpoints that fail to ensure the safety of Iraqi civilians and that this is a human rights violation, but they won't start speculating about whether this is due to incompetence/inexperience/negligence or whether its a deliberate policy on the part of the US army to try and kill as many Iraqis at checkpoints as possible (which is what this dicussion is really about I think).

When it comes to the second thing (analysis/interpretation), which anyway is the much more interesting stuff, it is almost impossible for a media outlet to be unbiased. So what do you read, who do you pay attention to? I don't really know the answer to this. One approach is to find those media outlets whose bias corresponds roughly to your own political outlook/prejudices and just read them. I seems to me that a lot of people do this and this applies to London Times/Sky News devotees as much as it does to readers of zmag/indymedia/medialens or readers of The Guardian/Independent. This seems to me to be a really lazy way out as you are never forced to challenge your own assumptions about things. I try my best to read a smattering of all this stuff. It's annoying and confusing and possibly explains why I have only half-formed opinions about a lot of things.

I do get really pissed off though when the likes of medialens claim to have sort of monopoly on truth, that they are presenting the real story, when what they are really doing is presenting one interpretation of what's going on.

(I've just reread all that and it now seems like laboriously stating the obvious. Oh well).

 

[billygannon]

I was standing outside Charing Cross station when during the two minute silence yesterday.

Definitely one of the more surreal moments in my life. This was the centre of London, with thousands of people walking about, loads of cars and buses on the road, and they all just suddenly stopped and were dead silent. It was like one of those movie moments when the world just stops.

London's still all over the place at the moment. Loads of tube stations were closed (half the Piccadilly line was down yesterday) and Russell Square is still more or less closed off.
Everyone's getting mini-cabs around the place because they're all afraid to get on the buses or on the tube.

That said, I think if the British government tried to introduce tough security measures, London would be the worst city to implement them - I think the reaction from Londoners to the government would be "who the fuck are you?".

 

[Latex lizzie]

Sounds mad. I hope we never have to go through any thing like this...

 

[rothko]

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.

< PreviousNext >

episode 25

"The Terrorist Attack"

Directed by: Robert B. Weide
First aired: October 13, 2002

Synopsis: A rumored threat of a terrorist attack undermines a benefit performance by Alanis Morissette. Meanwhile, Larry can't help snubbing Paul Reiser's wife Mindy during a series of encounters at a restaurant and the perfume shop where she works.

 

[Latex lizzie]

so blair says anyone who says the bombs are linked to iraq is being cynical and opportunistic while MI5 says that they are linked! get the story straight guys!

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F6025AE8-C5FB-4EF2-A905-0866F0DD4D83.htm

 

[Latex lizzie]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1190644,00.html

breaking news.

 

[Latex lizzie]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13399544,00.html

ah the tory party. I miss them really.

 

[broken arm]

there was a woman in work saying the attempted bombers should be shot and their families deported.

......................................................

 

[Latex lizzie]

Did she say this out loud? jeepers. Does your office not have some code of conduct or something you could get her on? the families of those blokes had no idea what they were at?!!