Explosions on the London underground

[aversion]

I doubt there was any thought of intimidating anyone. This is just mindless slaughter by backward rubes from backward thinking societies. Anyone with a brain already knows you can't bring a civilized nation to it's knees with a few paltry bombs.

Fear and intimidation are very similar, I can't imagine part of their goal wasn't to create a sense of both, as well as disrupt and create division as much as possible. It doesn't take a genius to have those goals.

[indivision]

i've been speculating about this lately also. Many of these terrorists stated reasons for their attacks generally boil down to 'leave us alone'. in truth, it seems they want anything but that. seems like it would be clear by now that these attacks just bring more attention, arrests, invasions, etc.

i dont think they want what they say they want. nor can i believe that they are stupid enough to believe they will 'win' some holy war against the rest of the world. they're like crybabies who have to throw the milk on the floor to get attention.

anyway, this is a horrible tragedy that really angers me. good for you guys for handling it so well.

[Ask The Geezer]

My point exactly. Any normal person with an 8th grade education can see the futility of it. Causing fear and intimidation does not divide a stong nation, it pisses them off and far from bringing them to their knees, it brings them to their feet, ready to fight.

Go ahead, point out Spain. Again my point. I hardly call Spain a strong willed nation. That was proven when they sided with hitler and again when they caved in over a few train bombings.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Go ahead, point out Spain. Again my point. I hardly call Spain a strong willed nation. That was proven when they sided with hitler and again when they caved in over a few train bombings.

IF memory serves me correct spain was in the middle of the election with the one fellow advocating pulling out of iraq before the train bombing. It was a very very close election and it can not be determined if the train bombing had any effect.

I believe those that plan terrorism think it will intimidate and coerce. Those that carry out the terrorism just want to kill.

[Ask The Geezer]

It was a very very close election and it can not be determined if the train bombing had any effect

Well, I guess you get your news from another source than I do. It was all over every channel here, that the guy who won hadn't a chance of winning until the train bombings. And still, my point remains. A "strong willed" people are not going to be coerced to change directions over a few bombings, no matter how spectacular.

You don't cower from a schoolyard bully. At worst, you take your lumps, then find a way to get even, or, you get your buddies to kick his ass and do it bad enough he gives up the idea of retaliation.

[hockyfan]

as well as disrupt and create division as much as possible.

It's ironic, because after attacks such as these, people usually are more unified than normal, ie., after September 11th.


h

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Well, I guess you get your news from another source than I do. It was all over every channel here, that the guy who won hadn't a chance of winning until the train bombings.

Having worked in one of the top 5 u.s. news orginization for a few years now, i have made sure to get my news from other sources than the channels here.

The pro-stay in iraq guy only led the lets-get-out-of-iraq-guy by a few points before the train bombing in spain. I"m not saying the bombing didn't have an effect... I just wouldn't call spain weak willed.

[Ask The Geezer]

The pro-stay in iraq guy only led the lets-get-out-of-iraq-guy by a few points before the train bombing in spain.

"The BBC's Chris Morris, in Madrid, says the bombings did more than shock Spain to the core; they proved to be the decisive factor in the general election that ousted the government.

Mr Zapatero was - until Thursday's bombings - considered an outsider for Spain's top job."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3512144.stm

[david petley]

I doubt there was any thought of intimidating anyone. This is just mindless slaughter by backward rubes from backward thinking societies. Anyone with a brain already knows you can't bring a civilized nation to it's knees with a few paltry bombs.

I mean, look at Vietnam, for a good example....



dp

[Ask The Geezer]

Yes, look at Viet Nam. It couldn't even be called a nation at the time of the war, yet the US, Australia, France, Great Britain and a host of others all tried their hand at it and loast it, because it was never fought to win it.

On the other hand, it wasn't a war either, it was police action run by fat, dumb and happy politicians lining ther pockets with blood money.

[david petley]

[QUOTE=iaskwhy]Yes, look at Viet Nam. It couldn't even be called a nation at the time of the war, yet the US, Australia, France, Great Britain and a host of others all tried their hand at it and loast it, because it was never fought to win it.

QUOTE]

No I really meant what I said....a nation cannot be defeated just by bombs, either a few, or a lot. They did try it in Vietnam, they bombed the crap out of it for years...and the Vietnamese basically said "screw you, we are not going to lay down and cry uncle, we want you out of our country".

I hope never to see such a 'police action' again.

Their fighting spirit was exactly the same as those in a western nation that says "we will not bow to intimidation" after such bombing attacks as we have just witnessed, and sadly are bound to witness again (each time getting closer to the action thanks to mobiile phone cameras and the like).

david

[Ask The Geezer]

No I really meant what I said....a nation cannot be defeated just by bombs

I wonder how many Germans and Japanese thought the same thing? They had just as much, if not more determination than any Viet Cong ever did. It can be done, but the cost is just too high, unless the stakes are you or them. It hasn't gotten to that yet, and never was in Viet Nam. That war could have been won, but the politicians refused to bomb Hanoi, the mamby pamby potlickers.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

"The BBC's Chris Morris, in Madrid, says the bombings did more than shock Spain to the core; they proved to be the decisive factor in the general election that ousted the government.

Mr Zapatero was - until Thursday's bombings - considered an outsider for Spain's top job."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3512144.stm

http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-24-04.html

Public opinion surveys before, during, and after the Iraq war showed that 80 to 90 percent of Spanish voters opposed the U.S. policy. Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's government took a great risk in defying such overwhelming sentiment by supporting the U.S. war and occupation. It should not come as a surprise that, in a healthy democratic system, a political party that arrogantly ignores the public's near consensus on an important issue may go down to defeat in the next election.

True, opinion polls showed the Popular Party with a modest lead over the opposition Socialists before the Madrid bombings. That was largely because the Iraq war had faded as a salient issue for most voters. The bombings of the commuter trains again elevated the prominence of the Iraq issue. And when that happened, voters remembered their irritation with the Aznar government.

[Ask The Geezer]

So who ya gonna believe?

Me, none of them!

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

It's pointless thinking that attacks like this can always be prevented. They are prevented all the time but it's impossible, without creating a police state, to stop every attack. There is no way to stop terrorism with extra security or tanks. Until the root causes of terrorism are tackled this kind of thing is inevitable, there is simply no way to stop it and it's delusory to criticise the security services, I really think they're doing as much as they can with the powers they have. Europe is an open place, people can move easily from one country to another, as it should be. Start curbing people's rights and the terrorists have won.

Exactly right. Been speaking with an English friend of mine, and as he said, "7 years ago london was under attack by a bomber attacking jews, pakistanis and gays, before that it was the IRA", so whether it was Thatcher in charge or any other "hard line" pollie, there isn't much more they could have done on the ground without becoming a police state. And then, yeah, the purpetrators have "won". The real work needs to happen behind the scene in the counter intelligence arena, along with - as Aversion has pointed out numerous times - looking at the the longer term root causes.

Time to look for a few deeper reasons than "They hate our freedoms", though we'll see if this time anything different happens. One lives in hope... (and meanwhile one works towards actually making a difference over time... )

And fortunately this time I had a friend who changed her plans on the morning of the attcks and so by shear luck wasn't in the area at the time...

[aversion]

Go ahead, point out Spain. Again my point. I hardly call Spain a strong willed nation. That was proven when they sided with hitler and again when they caved in over a few train bombings.

Oh come on, Spain weak for siding with Hitler? Spain was under the rule of a fascist dictator after years of brutal civil war, of course he sided with hitler, who else was he going to side with, his political enemies in france and england??! Hitler had been a supporter of Franco during the civil war, they were natural allies.

To generalise about Spain being weak, that it was "proven when they sided with hitler" is ridiculous. If the last election showed a weak willed country (and I'm not saying it did), it was the first time in a long history of a strong and forceful country that they demonstrated such weakness.

[aversion]

Time to look for a few deeper reasons than "They hate our freedoms", though we'll see if this time anything different happens. One lives in hope...

It will never happen, people will call you an apologist just for mentioning it and refuse to listen, especially if you wrap it in politics as George Galloway did yesterday. Governments won't step into that arena because it means facing their own responsibilities.

Let me be clear though, no one is responsible for what happened in London other than the terrorists who carried out the attack, no one.

Do what you can Davo, at least you're doing something.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Let me be clear though, no one is responsible for what happened in London other than the terrorists who carried out the attack, no one.

I don't think you'll have anyone disagreeing with you there. Same as anyone who commits a crime, they are still the ones responsible in the end. Doesn't mean, of course, that you simply ignore the socio-economic factors that contributed to the end result.

Do what you can Davo, at least you're doing something.

Yeah, but a long path I've set myself before I can even think of making any sort of wider scale contribution. I'm looking at going into the area of international law, human rights and advocacy, but it's a long road I have to walk to get the knowledge and experience behind me. But when I see events like this, and listen and read some of the rhetoric that gets thrown about, then I certainly know I wouldn't be happy doing nothing...

But we digress, this is about London, not me...

[admedia]

that you simply ignore the socio-economic factors that contributed to the end result.

By socio-economic, you mean of course religious fascism.

I'm looking at going into the area of international law, human rights and advocacy, but it's a long road I have to walk to get the knowledge and experience behind me.

This area definitely needs some assistance, I hear the meals at guantanamo bay are not quite 5-star these days.

[aversion]

By socio-economic, you mean of course religious fascism.

one leads to the other, extremism feeds on the disenfranchised and oppressed.