London Terrorist Attacks

[Seismosaurus]

I read an analysis about the terrorists a couple of years ago. According to the author's theory about the terrorist's motives, the only thing that would stop the acts of violence would be a wholesale conversion of all US citizens to Islam. Nothing else -- not even the US siding with Arab countries and declaring war on Israel -- would change their minds.

Attacking them would probably only add fuel to the fire, according to this theory. I guess we can't win no matter what we do.

Oh, we can. If we let it be known that each terrorist attack will be met with a 10 kiloton bomb on a city in the middle east then I suspect terrorism would stop rather abruptly. And if not... well, eventually they'd run out of people over there.

The question is whether we would be willing to go that far. Obviously not, for now. The UK and Israel have demonstrated that a nation can live with relatively frequent low-level terrorist attacks without going all out in return. I suspect that we can do the same when facing much less frequent but much bigger attacks - a 9/11 once every five or ten years say.

But if we start having 9/11 scale attacks every year? I think a lot of people would start wondering why we are keeping the gloves on.

 

[delphi_ote]

To stop this tragic cycle humanity must isolate the violent extremists. The killing is in not in anyone's best interest.

 

[AngrySteve]

Within hours of this happening, the conspiracy theorists were off again. Talking about people like David Icke and Alex Jones
and their respective websites

Very reprehensible material is going up already.

I'll go ahead and post the link, but it may offend people to read it, but in case people don't believe that some people are writing this crap !!

http://www.rense.com/general66/blair.htm

headline: Tony Blair Ordered The London Bombings

Surely grounds for character assasination and slander

Rense has previously posted an article that read "Bush Authorised the 9/11 attacks"

Some of these people are nuts !! Surely the conspiracy theorists should wait. When people are still in hospital, people still missing, people dying, and these nutters are coming out with their crap right away.

I'm going to ask people to consider NOT buying their material when their obvious books, tapes, and DVD's are being advertised on their web sites. I'm so angry !!

 

[Rolfe]

That's seriously offensive!

And naïve.

Sir Ian was nervous, and rightfully so. He had wanted to suspend all cell phone network services, but had been overruled by both Eliza Manningham-Buller and Tony Blair, the latter saying that "commuters should be given the chance to digitally record the full horror of the attacks". Yet Sir Ian knew that journalists would be curious as to why services were allowed to continue, given the widely known fact that the Madrid bombings had been detonated by mobile devices. It would be a tough call. He wouldn't, of course, be able to say that he knew well in advance that timers had triggered the explosives. He would just have to HOPE THAT JOURNALISTS WOULD IGNORE THIS SMOKING GUN....

I've learned right here on this forum that the Madrid bombings were triggered by mobile phones - simply using the alarm settings as timers!! No need for any mobile phone signal at all. And indeed, why would anyone rely on something so prone to interrupts as a mobile phone signal for something like this? And how was anybody supposed to imagine that a mobile phone (using its signal receiver) was going to blow anything up in the tunnels of the Picadilly Line???

And yet his main "smoking gun" is the fact that the mobile phone networks weren't turned off - thus "proving" that the authorities knew that the trigger mechanisms didn't rely on a mobile phone signal, therefore proving that they knew exactly how it was done, thus proving that they were actually responsible themselves.

Can't we at least have a plausible conspiracy theory if we've got to go that route? Anyone who knew anything about Madrid would know that a mobile phone signal wasn't necessary, and anyone who knew the Underground would know that nobody bombing that would even think of relying on mobile phone reception in the tunnels. But no, the fact that Sir Ian Blair could work that out means he must have actually planned the bombings.

At least it has the merit of being written as if it's just imaginative fiction. Which it is.

Give me strength!

Rolfe.

 

[jmercer]

Oh, we can. If we let it be known that each terrorist attack will be met with a 10 kiloton bomb on a city in the middle east then I suspect terrorism would stop rather abruptly. And if not... well, eventually they'd run out of people over there.

Hopefully, you're joking.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Hopefully, you're joking.

No, actually I'm not.

Nor am I saying that we should do that kind of thing. I'm speculating that we might end up doing something like it eventually. It's not so farfetched that the western democracies might target civilians en masse, even with nuclear weapons - after all, it's nothing we haven't done before.

This is exactly the kind of war that is being waged against us - no rules and maximum carnage directed against the most innocent. My point is that the terrorists should be careful in going down this road, because we can do it too, and do it far bigger and nastier than they can. The terrorists rely on our own sense of morality to protect them and theirs from such retaliation; but I suspect our morality will only go so far.

 

[Seismosaurus]

And how was anybody supposed to imagine that a mobile phone (using its signal receiver) was going to blow anything up in the tunnels of the Picadilly Line???

FWIW, you can actually use mobile phones on at least some of the underground network; I've done it myself more than once. Either the signal leaks down there or they have put base units on some of the stations.

 

[tkingdoll]

Does not posting a line saying: "I show sympathy to Londoners", mean I don't show it in real life? Wtf? Do I have to post line by line everything I feel?

You quote: "You implied that your sympathy lay elsewhere and nothing more." That's the same when the person I quoted said his thoughts are with the deceased in London. Does that imply only Londoners get sympathy, and no one else? LoL? Your replies are just narrowing and targetting certain points of mine that aren't even constructive.

Yes. These terrorist attacks doesn't seem to be happening outside this war zone. It's obvious. Let me know when you've found evidence where Bangladesh or Mongolia were prime targets.

I've never singled out Brits or Yanks. I'm implying the govt responsible. Yes the US govt. Yes the UK govt. I'm sure if I was a resident there, I would be against it too. In nowhere in my posts did I blame any individual or group of individuals.

Thx for noticing my quote Thor. Here's another:

"Let me go and I'll let you live" - Jet Li.

This is a quote from a BBC article on bloggers, but it makes the point better than I could:

"May I just remind you of one of those little rules that we have in our civilised society? We bury the dead and console the bereaved before we start making asinine political points."

 

[sf108]

No, actually I'm not.

Nor am I saying that we should do that kind of thing. I'm speculating that we might end up doing something like it eventually. It's not so farfetched that the western democracies might target civilians en masse, even with nuclear weapons - after all, it's nothing we haven't done before.

This is exactly the kind of war that is being waged against us - no rules and maximum carnage directed against the most innocent. My point is that the terrorists should be careful in going down this road, because we can do it too, and do it far bigger and nastier than they can. The terrorists rely on our own sense of morality to protect them and theirs from such retaliation; but I suspect our morality will only go so far.

Nice strategy there. But that really defeats the whole purpose of this democratic nation isn't it? That's what I suggested before...completely wiping out your opponent so they can't offer a counter-attack. Is there another way? There's this game theory I studied during economics which ensures that if two opposing nations have nukes, neither will fire it because they know if one did, the other will too, and thus begins WWIII. So knowing this pathline, neither will fire a nuke...ever. Unless one decides to be irrational.

If there was an ultimatum, the US can aim a nuke at a certain offending country, say Iraq (due to popular vote), any terrorist attacks going forward, would ensure Iraq's total annihilation. Now wouldn't that be a site for the people on this thread eh? But then again, nations against Iraq would just arrange an attack just so the US can be trigger-happy. Sigh...

Yeh Ashles, stop being childish and posting putdown insults to other posters. It's just low...be more civilised. I'm a coward? pfft...I've stuck to my original post since. All you can do is post insults. Does it really matter if this is political or not? Does it really matter if it's irrelevant to this thread or not? Is this the first time a post digressed from the thread topic? WOW! Get over it.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Nice strategy there. But that really defeats the whole purpose of this democratic nation isn't it?

Does it? I think many would argue that the ultimate purpose of any nation is to survive.

That's what I suggested before...completely wiping out your opponent so they can't offer a counter-attack. Is there another way? There's this game theory I studied during economics which ensures that if two opposing nations have nukes, neither will fire it because they know if one did, the other will too, and thus begins WWIII. So knowing this pathline, neither will fire a nuke...ever. Unless one decides to be irrational.

Standard MAD policy. But MAD only works if your opponent has nukes as well - and has enough of them to ensure your destruction.

If there was an ultimatum, the US can aim a nuke at a certain offending country, say Iraq (due to popular vote), any terrorist attacks going forward, would ensure Iraq's total annihilation. Now wouldn't that be a site for the people on this thread eh? But then again, nations against Iraq would just arrange an attack just so the US can be trigger-happy. Sigh...

Easy; you don't tell them in advance exactly what your target will be. Simply list say ten cities across the middle east and say that if there is another terrorist attack one will be chosen at random for retaliation.

God, I feel like Doctor Strangelove...

 

[Ashles]

Yeh Ashles, stop being childish and posting putdown insults to other posters. It's just low...be more civilised. I'm a coward? pfft...I've stuck to my original post since. All you can do is post insults. Does it really matter if this is political or not? Does it really matter if it's irrelevant to this thread or not? Is this the first time a post digressed from the thread topic? WOW! Get over it.

Sure we'll just 'get over' the bomb sites and the closed off roads all around me.
We'll just 'get over' the fact that the British National Party are now using the tragedy to further their own ploitical agenda.
We'll just 'get over' the fact that more attacks are likely.

Do not ever talk to me or anyone else about being 'civilised' after your despicable behaviour.

You are a moron for not having the first clue about how people might react to a tragedy like this.

We are all fully aware of the political ramifications of this act. But people with the slightest degree of intelligence or humanity also understand that sensitivity is required in the immediate aftermath.
This is obviously beyond you.

Good luck with your theories learnt from an economics class. I'm sure they have fully equipped you to solve the terrorist problem.

If you were really interested in talking about the politics of the situation I wonder why you haven't actually tried doing so in the 'Politics' forum?

Get a clue.

ETA: A nice message from another poster has put your comments into perspective. I don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to you. It obviously won't get through. Carry on with your political points - I am no longer interested in your comments.

My posts are not intended to be personal except with regard to your insensitivity - which is pretty much indisputable.
I am not debating your politics and do not wish to.

 

[Doc Dish]

FWIW, you can actually use mobile phones on at least some of the underground network; I've done it myself more than once. Either the signal leaks down there or they have put base units on some of the stations.

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=163702577

There are (or were) plans to extend the mobile network into the Underground and 'more than half' the stations already get reception. But, as Rolfe said, why trust your (obviously well planned) attack to something as unreliable as Mobile network reception, when the simpler timer function will suffice - the 21st Century equivalent of the alarm clock wired to sticks of dynamite.

 

[Mojo]

Something very interesting here . Those psychics did not see this thing coming.

I love the post at the bottom of that page:

Dunno, you judge...

Check this out:

Posted Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:03 pm.

This post then links to a "prediction" of the bombings posted all of four minutes earlier.

 

[Mid]

I love the post at the bottom of that page: Posted Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:03 pm.

This post then links to a "prediction" of the bombings posted all of four minutes earlier.

I like the fact that his (or hers) prediction recorded a mere 4 days after the attack was still so wonderfully vague "Strange, started again when I dreamed about explosions in a city over the 4th of July weekend accompanied by the sound of a clock bell.... Big Ben!" So it would appear that psychic phenomena are not only vague before an event, but even after it’s occurred.

I suppose if we were being generous we could give them the benefit of the doubt and say they only saw the importance of the dream after the attack; in which case their premonition is still wrong as the attack didn’t occur on the July 4th weekend but after it, or at a time when Big Ben was chiming, or actually within ear shot of Big Ben. I suppose at least under this possibility it just means the person's deluded instead of trying to jump on a tragedy to make them look important.

 

[jmercer]

No, actually I'm not.

Nor am I saying that we should do that kind of thing. I'm speculating that we might end up doing something like it eventually. It's not so farfetched that the western democracies might target civilians en masse, even with nuclear weapons - after all, it's nothing we haven't done before.

This is exactly the kind of war that is being waged against us - no rules and maximum carnage directed against the most innocent. My point is that the terrorists should be careful in going down this road, because we can do it too, and do it far bigger and nastier than they can. The terrorists rely on our own sense of morality to protect them and theirs from such retaliation; but I suspect our morality will only go so far.

Oh, ok. As long as you're not endorsing it.

However... I don't think the terrorists have much to worry about on this score. The international and political ramifications of conducting a nuclear attack against terrorist organizations would preclude any sane government from executing it.

[/get on soapbox]

Terrorist organizations are generally not centralized, and have a highly resilient cell-based structure; If you don't mind me using the much-dreaded and often-used tool of analogy, I'd compare them to an mestasisized cancer, spread throughout someone's body. (The body being the world.)

Any of the cancer cell clusters is capable of spreading itself all over again... so you have to kill them all to survive. When cancer is so widespread, irradiating all the areas of the body where the cells are found (the known cells, that is) isn't a good answer. (The nuclear solution.) In fact, that's likely to kill the patient due to the kind of damage caused... plus irradiating numerous portions of the body on that kind of scale may even generate new cancers while killing off the old.

Instead, the cancerous clusters have to be identified and eradicated individually, one organ (government) at a time. And if a particular organ encourages or invites the growth of cancer, it needs to be removed. (Such as the Taliban.)

Now, granted - we don't have to operate in a linear fashion. More than one cluster can be dealt with at a time. But the point is that the effort must be highly specific; you can't just drop a bomb on a city of tens of thousands, or a town of thousands - or even a village of hundreds - just to kill off a handful of terrorists.

In my analogy, I suggested that massive irradiation to kill the cancer cells might actually backfire - similarly, using nukes would probably swell the ranks of the terrorists and even create new terrorist organizations.

[/slip and fall off soapbox]

While I'm at it, I've been meaning to post my sorrow and support for my cousin's in the UK over this horrible and utterly despicable attack on innocent civilians. It's an outrage, and I hope that all the victims involved can recover their lives as best as possible.

I also I hope that the animals involved in doing this are kicked out of the gene pool (as painfully as possible) before they have a chance to pollute it any more than they've already done.

 

[epepke]

Oh, we can. If we let it be known that each terrorist attack will be met with a 10 kiloton bomb on a city in the middle east then I suspect terrorism would stop rather abruptly. And if not... well, eventually they'd run out of people over there.

I don't think it's likely that Western governments are going to lob Little-Boy-class munitions on Middle Eastern cities any time soon.

However, your post did provoke some thoughts.

One is that I wonder, based on your location, whether this is going to be a sea-change in the attitudes of the British. One of the people on the BBC last night said that this was the worst terrorist attack ever in Britain. I don't know if I believe that, but at least there's that perception. I wonder this because in the wake of 9/11, there was a lot of sympathy from across the pond, which was nice. However, the political stuff seemed to be a lot of "neener neener boo boo, we've had to deal with terrorism forever, ha ha ha!"

The other thing is that the WTC bombings involved more than 3000 deaths. I'm sure they mostly had family and friends. If said family and friends were to get together, they could hypothetically form a terrorist organization that would make al Qaeda look like a bucket of warm urine by comparison. This hasn't happened--or has it? The arguments in favor of revenge and retribution work both ways.

 

[aggle-rithm]

In my analogy, I suggested that massive irradiation to kill the cancer cells might actually backfire - similarly, using nukes would probably swell the ranks of the terrorists and even create new terrorist organizations.

I second that. The less these fanatics have to lose, the more likely they are to become more fanatical.

I like the cancer analogy. You also might mention that the terrorists are every bit as rational as cancer cells.

I personally think that the best approach to terrorism (for most of us) is to simply ignore it. Sure, attacks will happen once in a while, and people will die. However, they aren't dying at anywhere near the rate of murder or accident victims, and we don't spend all our time worrying about that.

 

[Jas]

Yes. These terrorist attacks doesn't seem to be happening outside this war zone. It's obvious. Let me know when you've found evidence where Bangladesh or Mongolia were prime targets.

I've never singled out Brits or Yanks. I'm implying the govt responsible. Yes the US govt. Yes the UK govt. I'm sure if I was a resident there, I would be against it too. In nowhere in my posts did I blame any individual or group of individuals.

The fault for the terrorist attacks lies with no other than those who detonated the explosives. How can you possibly think that the blame lies elsewhere?

It's not the fault of the UK or US gov't that some nutcases decided to attack innocent civilians. So you honestly think that these people had no other choice than to blow up the Underground? Were they forced into it? Did someone, at some point, force them to kill over 50 people?

Terrorists are terrorists are terrorists, and it is a great folly to blame anyone but them for their actions.

 

[EHocking]

Sure we'll just 'get over' the bomb sites and the closed off roads all around me.
We'll just 'get over' the fact that the British National Party are now using the tragedy to further their own ploitical agenda.
We'll just 'get over' the fact that more attacks are likely.

Do not ever talk to me or anyone else about being 'civilised' after your despicable behaviour.

You are a moron for not having the first clue about how people might react to a tragedy like this.

We are all fully aware of the political ramifications of this act. But people with the slightest degree of intelligence or humanity also understand that sensitivity is required in the immediate aftermath.
This is obviously beyond you.

Good luck with your theories learnt from an economics class. I'm sure they have fully equipped you to solve the terrorist problem.

If you were really interested in talking about the politics of the situation I wonder why you haven't actually tried doing so in the 'Politics' forum?

Get a clue.

ETA: A nice message from another poster has put your comments into perspective. I don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to you. It obviously won't get through. Carry on with your political points - I am no longer interested in your comments.

My posts are not intended to be personal except with regard to your insensitivity - which is pretty much indisputable.
I am not debating your politics and do not wish to.

Hear, hear.

Being one of the 1000s of fortunates that got to work safely on Thursday does not lessen the anxiety that my wife felt while she frantically tried to get a mobile signal to see if I'd made it to work all right. It was her call that alerted our office to the tragedy.

As it was her call that alerted our office in Houston of the September 11 tragedy, when she rang to make sure I had not got on a flight that day.

sf108, your first post was an ill-considered, insulting and offensive non sequitur

You should have just apologised for the inappropriateness of it in a thread offering sympathy for the victims and their families and left it at that.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Oh, ok. As long as you're not endorsing it.

However... I don't think the terrorists have much to worry about on this score. The international and political ramifications of conducting a nuclear attack against terrorist organizations would preclude any sane government from executing it.

[/get on soapbox]

Terrorist organizations are generally not centralized, and have a highly resilient cell-based structure; If you don't mind me using the much-dreaded and often-used tool of analogy, I'd compare them to an mestasisized cancer, spread throughout someone's body. (The body being the world.)

Any of the cancer cell clusters is capable of spreading itself all over again... so you have to kill them all to survive. When cancer is so widespread, irradiating all the areas of the body where the cells are found (the known cells, that is) isn't a good answer. (The nuclear solution.) In fact, that's likely to kill the patient due to the kind of damage caused... plus irradiating numerous portions of the body on that kind of scale may even generate new cancers while killing off the old.

Instead, the cancerous clusters have to be identified and eradicated individually, one organ (government) at a time. And if a particular organ encourages or invites the growth of cancer, it needs to be removed. (Such as the Taliban.)

Now, granted - we don't have to operate in a linear fashion. More than one cluster can be dealt with at a time. But the point is that the effort must be highly specific; you can't just drop a bomb on a city of tens of thousands, or a town of thousands - or even a village of hundreds - just to kill off a handful of terrorists.

In my analogy, I suggested that massive irradiation to kill the cancer cells might actually backfire - similarly, using nukes would probably swell the ranks of the terrorists and even create new terrorist organizations.

[/slip and fall off soapbox]

While I'm at it, I've been meaning to post my sorrow and support for my cousin's in the UK over this horrible and utterly despicable attack on innocent civilians. It's an outrage, and I hope that all the victims involved can recover their lives as best as possible.

I also I hope that the animals involved in doing this are kicked out of the gene pool (as painfully as possible) before they have a chance to pollute it any more than they've already done.

I'm not suggesting that we might use nukes or whatever against the terrorists as such; rather, that we could target the middle east in general. Do as they do - target the innocents who have nothing to do with the conflict.

And yes, this could act as a recruiting tool for the terrorists; but that's the whole point, if they step up their attacks they know that it will just cause that much more carnage back home.

Ultimately I doubt they could sustain it; we suffer a hundred bombings, they lose a hundred cities. We could rebuild from that easily, but there would be little left of the middle east by the end of it.

As for how likely it is, I agree that it's not very - IF these attacks continue to be relatively few and far between. But if we have a 9/11 every few months, I suspect the rules would quickly change.

And yes, my sympathies also go out to those touched by Thursday's events. I almost had to travel through London myself that day, though it would have been much later on so it's not really a close call or anything. Makes you think though.