At least two are dead, Six Blasts Rock London, Killing at Least 2

Today is a black day for the entire world. I wept as I heard the news from London. London's famed Underground and mass transit system has been targeted with at least 6 explosions, including one of the most famous London symbols a double decker bus has been destroyed in a series of bombings. Is this too much like the train bombings of Madrid and the bus bombings in Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv?As my heart and prayers go out to the people of London and indeed the entire British Isles I sit and wonder many questions.

This occurred during the G8 Summit in Scotland, one day after London winning the 2012 Olympic bid.

Questions for consideration:
Who did this terrible deed?

Why did they do this?

Why London?

Why the transit system?

Why now?

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere?

I don't know, but I suspect an al qaeda cell. Its not like Britian has a lack of extremist Muslims. I seriously doubt its the IRA since they nearly always target economic targets and they nearly alwats give an advanced warning.


Because they are at 'war' with the non Islamic world.


Because its wide open and very easy to hit. All the targets are public transport vehicles with no protection what so ever against terrorism.

Any moron with a back pack could carry out these attacks.


G8


Nothing. This is the reality of the global 'war' on terror.

What has struck me about this attack is the indignant surprise by all those involved. What did people expect? Attacks like this are happening on a daily basis in Iraq and no one bats an eye lid. It happens here in the west and suddenly Tony Blair is talking about 'those responsible having no respect for human life'.

Well congratulations Tony, but the only difference between today and yesterday is the geography of the explosions.

Who did this terrible deed? I believe that a al-quida terrorist cell did do this. They are also claiming response apparently.

<snip><snip> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07...tube/index.html

Why did they do this? Probley to show the world that Al-Quada is alive in Europe.

Why London? I believe London because they have helped America in the war on terror, now will London get a new perspective in the war is another question

Why the transit system? Thats one of the easiest things to attack. It would be too complex to crash another airplane into something that they cherish. And there are a lot of people on the transit at this time of day.

Why now? N/A

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere? Show the world that there are indeed terrorist who want them dead no matter their ethnicity or sex. The world as a whole needs to get together and increase security.

Post Edited for spelling.

Who did this terrible deed?

Why did they do this?

Why London?

Why the transit system?

Why now?

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere?

Al Qaeda have claimed responsibility, although I don't know enough about them to say whether its true or not

Britain was in the war on iraq and in the WOT in general

Why the transit system? Because everyone uses it at 9 am when the bombs went off and some people are still trapped underground a good few hours later.

Why now - G8 summit - of course, all our security was focused on Gleneagles - because thats where the heads of the G8 all are.

I don't know how to stop these things. The police and MI5 missed this - so I guess that the truth is that somethings can't be prevented. Perhaps the solution lies in ensuring a freer more democratic world - if that can ever be achieved.

I disagree. What I believe our problem is that Al Qaeda has no fear of retribution. Don't you think that the CIA or MI6 has an understanding of who funds these operations? What about attacking the Saudi funding? Send a Brigade of Marines into Saudi to just knock off the financiers of these operations? (I can say with complete assuredness that one aircraft carrier and a brigade of well trained Marines would have nothing to fear in the Saudi Army)

Regardless of what the international community believes, these operations take time, money, and man-power. Getting enough explosive material into a foreign country to conduct an attack of this magnitude should be able traceable. People of this nature accept responsibility quickly, and our involvement in the Mid-East should allow us to understand where this began.

The thing is that in Iraq, as you so eloquently mention, that most often times the attacks are on "enemies" of the combatants. This could include US military personnel or Iraqi civilians compliant with the new regime. It often times involves people signing up to be police, etc. It's not like the insurgents are attacking shopping malls, office bldg's, and grocery stores at random. You forget, those are Hamas tactics... oh-and lest we not forget that the deadliest day of the Iraqi war was only 37 people killed... this attack has over a thousand injured and 45 dead already!

In this case, terrorists attacked unarmed civilians on European soil.

I believe that we could do the following;
1. Hunt down and oust all terrorist-related cells on our shores, not worrying about racial-profiling or "political-correctness".
2. Spend more money protecting our shores from illegal immigration, and step-up INS monitoring of people from terrorist-related countries.
3. Put financial and military pressure on all nations that finance said organizations. If they harbor or fund Al Qaeda (or terrorist cells elsewhere), they will face the retribution of the US Military.

(trust me, there are no middle eastern countries that stand a snow ball's chance in ... well, you know)

moif, I understand your position on this administration and on the US, as you've made it clear in previous posts. However, as you know this has gone on far too long. We need to cut the tree at its roots... which in my mind... is in the bank accounts of the Saudis (and other middle-easterners) whom are long overdue for a sincere wake up call. If we keep the fight on their doorstep, it's far less likely to spill over onto our shores. I'll use a football game as an analogy. If the ball is always on the opposing team's end of the field, they can never score.... the best defense is a good offense.... Terrorist organizations exist completely funded by those whom are not participating in the actual operations. Afterall, terrorist organizations are not profitable ventures.

I think as time goes on, we as Americans and Westerners have to understand that these attacks have been persistent and relentless. I believe that we have to take time to understand muslim extremism at its root, and come to understand the Koran and Muhammed as he really is in the eyes of the extremists, a violent and barbaric teacher.

I, for one, will volunteer for a second trip to the sand box to help with this operation. I don't want to leave my family or my career to sleep in a cot, stand in harm's way, or have sand in my boots 24/7 ever again, but I believe that there are plenty of Americans and British that would stand along side me on this one...

They are still carrying bodies out of the tube and we already have moral equivalence between the war in Iraq and the intentional killing of civilians in London. Well done, moif. Some of us indeed do "bat an eyelid" when terrorists kill innocent Iraqis and coalition soldiers, which is why we are KILLING THEM as best as we can. Thanks for illustrating the anti-war cause so eloquently.

Debating the issues behind these attacks is a bit premature. However, I am very suprised by this statment just released by George Galloway.



This ranks up there with Chamberlain’s "peace in our time" statement. Hopefully the rhetoric will be toned down for a short time. Let Britain get through the day first.

The Islamist radicals we are at war with did this. No question about it. It sure as heck wasn't "conservative Christian white males" who seem to get a few in here so worked up in an overly irrational way.

Why did they do it? Because they want to break the will of the West. They know they can't win on the battlefield so they are trying to drum up the sentiment (as they did in Spain) for countries such as the UK (and others) to withdraw into their shells and not confront them as Bush, Blair and a few brave others have done. This tactic worked in Spain and it'll be tried elsewhere (including the US). In fact, I'm surprised they haven't hit us yet and tried to leverage the anti-war, anti-American movement that exists right here within one of our major political parties. Can one just imagine Howard Dean, Pelosi, Reid, and Kennedy if this happened in a US subway? They'd be tripping over each other in a mad dash to the microphones and cameras in order to blame Bush, blame America's war on terror, and blame our ties with nations such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Why London? Because it's the heart of the UK.

Why the transit system? Because it has the dual effect of terrorizing civilians and effectively shutting down the city for days on end. It's an economic and a terror hit.

What can be done to prevent this? What Bush is doing. Hunting down the terrorists, killing or locking up every last one of them, and working to undermine and discredit the social force that is motivating them in the first place. And also, and most importantly, taking out the state support for these networks in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

The heart of the Islamist beast currently is in Tehran. It's a war that we're in and Iran is a battle we will have to fight whether we want to or not. There is no question in my mind that the conflict with that regime is coming down the road. And it may go nuclear before it's all over. Hopefully, we exploit all covert methods at our disposal before it comes to that point.

We can bury our heads in the sand, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya until the cows come home... but we are against an enemy that has no regard for human life and who does believe in compromising from their fanatical Islamist ideals. They are worse than the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese. They have no underlying civilization of any worth behind their ideals. Just terror, oppression, and a slavish devotion to a warped cause.

This is a global struggle between the forces of freedom, democracy, and liberty against those who favor a totalitarian Islamist globe. If we see it as any less, we will be in danger of losing everything to these fanatics.

Who did this terrible deed?

Some Islamic extremist group, likely Al Quida.

Why did they do this?

They are mad about Israel, and they are mad about the infidel occupations that are currently taking place in the Middle East. Being our closest ally in Iraq and Aphganistan, Britain is a logical target (and certainly makes a whole lot more sense then Spain).

Why London?

Because it is the capital of Britain.

Why the transit system?

Millions of Londoners commute via subway every single day. By shrouding the subway with terrorist phobia, the attacks stand to severely injure Londons economy. Like all terrorist attacks, this is less about violence, and more about spreading fear.

Why now?

On top of giving the terrorists a bit more of a media attention, the G8 also assisted the terrorist attacks by ensuring that Londons security forces were distracted. 11,000 policemen were guarding the G8 summit in Scotland, while the attacks occurred in London.

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere?

Improved security obviously.

In contrast with the worthless, terrorist-coddling, opportunistic tool that is George Galloway, here is London Mayor Ken Livingstone.



Edited to add, in answer to "why now?" - In addition to the G8, this week is the start of the trial of Muslim Cleric Abu Hamza. cnn link

I heard that speech live and was very impressed by it. Also, Blair and Bush (when you ignore the "um's").

All three were very eloquent and powerful.

This has put "global warming" back on the back-burner where it belongs. We need to stay focused on the primary issue of our time which is the global war against these Islamist terrorist fanatics.

Who did this terrible deed?

I think it is obvious- everyone here is in agreement, right, Al-Quaida- you know, the world is a much safer place now- wasn't that what GW told us?

Why did they do this?

G8- Worlds attention
Punish those that stand with the US
Illustrate that the world is more chaotic now- not less
Terrorize- that is why they are called "terrorists"

Why London?

Financial center just like New York

Easiest target- soft targets are civilians. Would you take on the American military and the British military head on with nothing but an RPG and an AK-47.

Why now?

Convienent timing- G8 in Scotland.

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere?

Well, since the begining, I have said Iraq was always the wrong target- like Aevens on this one- we need to invade, and should have invaded, the real source of Al-Quaida supporters and money- where nearly all the 9/11 guys came from, Saudi Arabia. A dictatorship as brutal and evil as Saddams, the money spigot for Al-Quaida, but, unfortunately, also the Bush family, the mullah training ground for extremists- wahibism etc etc.

So much for our attacking Iraq for making the world a safer place eh? The exact opposite has happened- we now have a new training, breeding and funding ground for these kind of terrorists.

It is too bad innoncents always have had to pay the price for our leaders follies.

All I can say, is I would be shocked if the British responded to these terror attacks the way Spain did. The Brits have a reputation for being pretty darn fiesty and aggressive. If anything, it will make them very very angry and all the more determined to root out terrorists everywhere in the world.

Spain acted the way they did for completely different reasons -

1) they lied about it being Basque terrorists instead of Al-Quaida-
2) They were about 90% against it in the first place.

Spain reacted with a giant "I told you so" to their incumbants- nothing more, nothing less.

Scapegoating them for our folly may be the easy way- but not the correct one.

Who did this terrible deed?
Not Saddam Hussien

Why did they do this?
Because they aren't at the "front on the war on terror" - Iraq. And because they didn't sign up for the "take the fight to them" idea.

Why London?
There is nothing for them to fear, so go big.

Why the transit system?
Many contained targets and a potential economic impact

Why now?
Why not now?

To reiterate what Bush has said, I'm happy that tying up every available resource we have in "liberating" Iraq has made the world much safer.

What DR said struck home for me as well-

Why now?

What does Al-Quaida have to fear from Great Britain? What threat do we really have towards them?

Death? Do you think a suicide bomber is really afraid of dying?

Attacking Iraq? These guys never have been from there, it is like me shooting at your house, so you shoot at my nieghbors I don't like anyway- it is a win/win for Al-Quaida-

A big "I told you so" would be petty, but appropriate unfortunately. I would rather be proven wrong, with the whole world a much safer place with the attack on a brutal dictator, but reality has shown us otherwise once again.

How much longer before they hit another American target, and with lot's of chest thumping and self-agrandizement, we will do what now? Attack Syria? Maybe North Korea- hey, they won't see that coming! A suprise attack on Canada maybe? I hear they have muslims there, and they did legalize gay marriage and marijuana- a major source of instability in North America now.

Good job with the rhetoric Cruising Ram, but you're missing about 5 things that happened prior to the Invasion of Iraq... ! ! ! We were attacked 4 times during your hero's administration, and then again on 9/11, which was planned for years prior to GW.

Consider the USS Cole, the World Trade Center, the Embassy Bombing(s), and 9/11. How many times has US soil been attacked in the past 4 years?????

Nice try, but consider the math.... we were attacked 5 times in 4 years; we invaded Iraq and American soil has since yet to be attacked. Seems like a pretty good track record to me. A good offense is the best defense...

Innocents pay a price alright, every time we bow to terrorist attacks and don't avenge these acts with complete and total retribution. Think about what happened during the Clinton Administration... a lack of action led to future attacks.

It is unbelievable how short sighted these statements are above. When the US lost the Philippians to the Japanese in World War Two did people claim that we were losing the war? Did they say that we were losing because we were concentrating too much energy on Germany, a State that had not attacked us? Here is a short list of terrorist attacks/plots before 9/11. Pan Am 103, 9/11, The first attack on the WTC, the 2000 millennium attack plots, The USS Sullivan’s attack plot, The LAX attack plot, The US Cole bombing. There are tons of other examples, the world was not safe before we invaded Iraq and to suggest it is getting worse ignores the these facts.

If we are to believe the terrorist’s statement:



This is not just about Iraq, this conflict has a long way to go. The only people that seem to be separating Iraq and the war on terror are people against the war in Iraq.

yawn- same answers with the same results- there was how many years between attacks on our soil? oh yeah, Clinton really harmed us internationally the way GW has LOL- keep on believing there dude!

They will attack were we are not looking- it is only a matter of time until WE are not looking in the right area- they have nothing but time, and more resources now than when we began. Ya, real good work there.

You and I have both been low ranking (as in not officers in charge of planning anything of substance) military members- do you think you could carry out an attack with three or four trusted poeple just about anywhere in the world? What is stopping you? Perhaps lack of desperation and hope for a better day? And we are ending those two root cause how? Every terrorist we kill, it is like the hydra, 2 more heads pop up.


We attack a country with absolutely no ties whatsoever to these poeple that commited this bombing, and this has made the world safer how?

We are the poster for recruitment right now- and unfortunately, so is Britain as well now.

Either of you- who do you want to attack now? Who should pay- can you point him out in a crowd?

You think GW is going to invade Saudi seriously?

Should we just stay the course- because it is working so well?

You know, in a way it disgusts me how everyone goes insane whenever a few handfuls of first world citizens die. Meanwhile millions of people are dieing from extreme poverty every year, and we seem to almost indifferent to that. I don't see anyone weeping around here over the tragedys that far worse then this one, which occurring with a much higher frequency in Africa. Where is our morality?? In the distribution of our compassion, we are considering members of the third world as almost sub-human! Were spending hundreds of billions to fight something that isn't even a significant world problem...

What does this mean CR? I don't understand your point here. How is anyone scapegoating Spain for our folly? Spain got hit with terrorist attacks and responded overwhelmingly to withdraw from Iraq. It is pretty clear that it was in response to the terror attacks.

Yes, but the uusual american chest thumpers say " oh , they surrendered because they were attacked, the wimps" - when it is simply not the truth- they didn't want the goverment to be there in the first place, the majority of the country had made this clear prior to the election- and the spanish goverment at the time knew this- so when the attack came, as it was pretty inevitable it would- they blamed it on the basques so they wouldn't get an "I told you so" from thier opposition- and when the truth came out- they were voted out by a landslide.

Making the spanish out to be cowards for thier NEW goverment follow the wishes of the electorate from the begining is typical right wing smear tactics.

Of course no one is going to invade Saudi. You and I agree on this one. That's the sad part about American government. Frankly, our relationship with the Saudi's and their support of terrorism via financial resources has roots to the 1960's.

My point is that it's not just GW, the fact is that keeping terrorist resources tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan has proven two things. Firstly, that the US will fight back and that we're not going to sit idly by and allow our shores to be targets for random attacks. Secondly, that insurgency is expensive. I can't imagine that Al Qaeda (or the Taliban, etc) has the capacity to fight on multiple fronts and it will attack the weaker arms of "western civilization", as security measures are likely less effective in Europe.

I agree that most well trained fighting men and women could probably plan an attack on foreign shores. The problem is that how would we finance it?? How long does it take to plan an implement said process?

Iraq may have been a bad decision for our whole government (as it was voted on by all of congress!), but the track record is still far better than it was before. Lest we not forget that we're still fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

No, I cannot point anyone out in a crowd in reference to attacking a specific source of terrorist activity. The thing is that the CIA's business is to do just that. If it were me making the decisions, I'd wage an all out financial and political war on all muslim extremist groups regardless of stature or OPEC standing. The bottom line is that if it comes down to oil reserves... ummm... we are in IRAQ!!!
Also, we need to get past political correctness. Why do we playcate and handle extremist muslims in our country with kid gloves???
I could find a suitable solution for said parts of the American populus...


All being said and done, it's probably not a bad idea to have an American presence in the middle east. Frankly, I feel more secure having Marines on the ground in striking distance of those who's pockets are the source of this evil....

Someone who knows nothing about Africa:


Someone who knows something about Africa:



And on to our topic.


CruisingRam, revisit your logic for a second - you are saying that our not being attacked is a failure, because someone, somewhere, sometime could attack us? Say what you will about Bush, but the fact remains, with the exception of a few toy grenades in NYC this May, there have been no attacks since 9/11. It's just a fact. You don't expect us to believe that, God forbid, we were attacked, you wouldn't be the first to blame Bush for that failure?

And you're also saying that the desparate extremists are attacking us because of Bush's policy recruiting more terrorists? Do you really believe that their world outlook is changed whether there is a Democratic moderate or a Republican moderate in the White House? Our policies vs. the arab world have changed - yes, but the world is substantially the same for your everyday Saudi or Jordanian. If you argue against the "root causes" you must surely see that corrupt arab royals and dictators, aiding and tolerating religious extremists are the actual root causes, no? How did the election of George Bush change this, other than Saudis are cracking down a little more on extremists? Iraq War I / II has been going for more than 14 years, with even Clinton participating. You are being inconsistent if you acknowledge that the terrorists have no hope and ambition, yet believe that they are somehow influenced by American politics.

Who did this terrible deed?
Reports on the ground are still sketchy, but it looks like the style of an Islamic fundamentalist group more than the IRA or their offshoots - they always gave a coded warning to maintain the fiction that their war was against the British economy rather than against the British people themselves (despite the bombs in Bishopsgate and Warrington that killed & injured on similar or larger scales)

After investigation, it looks like only four bombs were detonated, three on Tube trains, one on a bus. Some trains were between stations, so casualties came out from six stations. There were also security alerts on mainline trains bound for London in three provincial towns, on being the where I live, though I understand that these were false alarms - the overground rail and bus networks in London are already on the way to resuming normal service.

Why did they do this?
Because they can, and because they know that their case would vanish into thin air if they tried to express it rationally.

Why London?
It's the capital city of a country that has been at the forefront of the fight against international terrorism since well before 9-11 (through hard experience with the IRA)

Why the transit system?
1. It's relatively unguarded - a soft target - by its very nature. Tube trains and buses that run every few minutes, where hundreds of people get on and off trains at each stop, are impossible in practical terms to screen for potential threats of this nature. It's not like an airport or a mainline railway station where you can use x-ray machines and body searches on each passenger.
2. Any attack such as this on a building - as the IRA used to do - affects the people in the immediate environs deeply, but the localisation means that people further away aren't immediately panicked. Attack a train or bus in a city where most commuters use trains or buses, and you cause temporary chaos across an entire transport network (maximising the immediate impact) and instil longer term fear and suspicion among all the people that use it.

Why now?
The G8, of course - they couldn't get to Gleneagles without having to fight entire regiments of the armed and security services, so the hopped onto the trains and buses.
For those expecting the pre-existing G8 agenda mainstays of climate change and African debt to be put onto the back burner - I think one of you described this as "where they belong" - I'd direct you to some of the other comments made describing the British as a gritty and determined race of people. If Dubya thinks a few half-cocked bomb attacks let him off the hook from having to commit to any kind of action on climate change and serious reforms in Third World aid and trade, or publicly explain why he isn't going to do that, he doesn't know Tony Blair very well at all. (Say what you like about Blair, he does tend to follow through what he starts.)
The conspiracy theorist in me wonders whether this is also designed as some kind of scare tactic related to yesterday's (far happier) news that London had won the bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games, though given that such things require planning, that must surely be coincidence.

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere?
Nothing, over and above sensible levels of public watchfulness and ongoing police investigations. Ever since 9-11, and especially since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, domestic security services here have consistently described such an attack as we saw today in terms of inevitablity - it wasn't a question of if, but of when.
Details are sketchy, because of legal restrictions, but we are periodically told that the British security services have detected and averted several plots to do this kind of thing before. If trials and convictions are secured, we may in a few years find that rather a lot of such events have already been averted.
It's my guess that dropping bombs on foreign countries will not have much effect on this kind of attack.

I have been watching the news with great sorrow for the victims of this terrible event. How many more will die before the world learns that terrorism, and I mean all terrorism is wrong?

The statement from Red Ken almost made me cry, except that I remember all of his justification for the murder of non-British citizens. That man truly disgusts me.

Who did this well there are a lot of claims that will have to be sorted out over the next several days and weeks. But as some here have pointed out England has been home to many Muslim extremists and their supports. Hardly a bastion of Zionism there.

Others have commented on President Bush's WOT. Well I for one find that a farce. He is willing to have a War of Terror if they threaten the US, otherwise he might as well be another Bill Clinton. Iran publishs in their budget who much they spend on terrorism, they occupied US territory under the Peanut Farmer and still hold to this day. Saudi Arabia funds terrorism and the US does nothing. The Russians are fighting some terrorists and Bush tells them they have to negotiate with the terrorists, some war. Not only tells the Israelis that he supports terrorists, he funding them to the tune of half a billion of American taxpayer dollars in aid, and that Israel must allow another terrorist state right on their border and that he plans to divide Israel into two nations so that they can attack them with less effort.

As for a left handed person, I believe that the G8 summit was meeting to get more aid to the poor people of Africa. Hardly ignoring the problem.

Them people dying from extreme poverty need to get themselves a job. It is the primary purpose of government to defend it's citizens from internal and external aggressors, not feed the slothful.

I am betting most of those people on the transit vehicles were going to work. They weren't looking for a handout.

In order to stop terrorism you have to kill terrorists while addressing the legitimate concerns of the population that the terrorists spring from.

The conversation on here is identical to what Rush Limbaugh is spouting on the radio right now - Iraq, Afghanistan, and Al Qaida are the same.

But they're not.

No international terrorist attack has ever come from an Iraq source. Ever. The Taliban - from Afghanistan - did. And with the support of the world, we took the fight to them and decimated (but didn't destroy) them.

Al Qaida has attacked us and the world plenty. Al Qaida was behind WTC I. Al Qaida was behind 9/11. Al Qaida was behind the Cole. The Taliban was our enemy and brought the fight to our shores.

But instead of getting the world to help us continue to fight Al Qaida, we picked a fight with Iraq on our own - who had nothing to do with Al Qaida, Afghanistan, or international terrorism. Now, Iraq has become somewhat of an annex with Al Qaida and that has turned into excuse #214 for justifying invading that nation while Al Qaida continues to kill innocents wherever it feels like it.

Most of us "stinking liberal democrats" wanted to attack terrorism - not Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism and/or 9/11. We should have hunted down Al Qaida with the rest of the world at our side and we didn't.

It's that simple.

I learned about these incidents by email from my mother who informed me that, thankfully, she had not gone into work today so she was not on the tube this morning.

Questions for consideration:
Who did this terrible deed?
An Al Qaeda group has claimed responsibility for the deed.

Why did they do this?
Terror and all the results of instilling it.

Why London?

It is the governmental and financial hub of England.

Why the transit system?

Guaranteed body count, large economic disruption.

Why now?
It is obviously either the G8 summit or the trial of Abu Hamza al-Mazri -- or taking advantage of both.

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere?

Invade Argentina because intelligence reports indicate that the Argentinian government is working closely with Al Qaeda to get back the Falkland Islands in order to use it as a base for terror and to manufacture WMD's. The Argentinians must be stopped and prevented from using terror as a means to herd sheep.

Who did this terrible deed?

Apparently, Al Qaeda.

Why did they do this?

The same reasons they always give: support of Israel, anti-Islamist power, imperialist...and, of course, Iraq.

Why London?

London is Europe's equivalent of New York.

Why the transit system?

It's terrorism. What better way to inflict terror then to blow up a bunch of people going to work?

Why now?

G8

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere?

Let's face it. This sort of thing will continue to happen. Since we've entered the beginning stages of the WoT, expect more explosions of this kind. I still stand behind my prediction of a nuke being detonated in a major population center before this decade is out.

Anyway, stopping (or at least reducing) terrorism requires a two-pronged approach in my opinion. We need to take the offense AND we need to address the reasons why it is festering and growing. It is insufficient to do one without the other...period. We also need to be very careful about picking our battles (or wars). Choosing poorly can make all the difference. I agree with DR that Iraq is a very poor choice in this regard.

So Al Qaida, Bush, and Blair are wrong to discuss Iran and Afghanistan as part of the war on terror. Again, this reasoning is as good “Japan attacked us, why are we fighting Germany” argument for World War Two.



This is obviously a different topic of debate; I covered the connections between Iraq and terrorism here. You will likely ideologically disagree with this assessment, but your claim that Iraq isn’t part of the war on terrorism is short sighted. I would also like to know where else was the world going to fight with us at, please explain to me what States France was ready to invade for the cause. For all the goodwill speech-making after 9/11 I do not suspect Europe was ready to invade any State beside Afghanistan.

You really shouldn't listen to that stuff - it will give you a headache!


If I replace the bolded "instead of" with "in addition to" above, wouldn't that also be factually correct? You must be aware of the dozens or hundreds of instances of global cooperation to roll up terror cells. Just last week in Spain they arrested a bunch of them.

Also bolded above, I note that you and I agree on one thing - the terrorists had 213 reasons for attacking us besides Iraq. OK.

You are arguing that, without the distraction of the Iraq war, we would have been more successful in finding / killing / arresting terrorists. This seems to me a pretty reasonable argument. I'll concede that having Bin Laden and al-Zarqawi still at large is a failure.

Question - Would you acknowlege that zero attacks on US soil is a success? Vs. the alternative, I mean?

Two lesser questions:
- Without deposing Saddam Hussein, would we ever catch Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas or al-Zarquawi?
- Wouldn't those guys in Guantanamo rather be doing what happened in London today, but they can't 'cause they are in lockup?

Good God...I feel like we need a third grade teacher here to set history straight.

Japan attacked us. Germany attacked our allies. Each was an act of war. We defended oursleves and our allies. How you can possibly twist that comparison is beyond my comprehension.

And as far as your:

He was in Kurdish territory protected by the no-fly zones. Technically, we prevented Saddam from getting to him while apparantly, you want to hold Saddam accountable for it. This is like blaming the Gitmo prisoners for not doing their part to fight terrorism. We got them locked up for Pete's sake!

My argument that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism is based on pure fact - not speculation and leaps of logic.

Al Qaida will continue to kill innocents all over the world regardless of what we do in Iraq. That was proven today.

Ummmmm... What about this.

Although I believe Saddam should have been taken out in the first Gulf War for invaiding Kuwait.. late is better than never.

Zero attacks since 9/11 means nothing. In the 10 years before we spent $300 billion dollars, expanded our government size by 30%, lost 1800 lives, and started searching my grandmothers shoes for bombs, we hadn't been attacked at home. Abroad, terrorism has increased 4-fold.

As far as catching terrorists, Saddam's had the same success as us - none.

Gitmo is holding for all intents and purposes, prisoners of war. None of them to my knowledge have/had anything to do with targeting innocents.

Sheesh....not this again. Name me one country in that area that doesn't have "Israel" in it's name that didn't. Iraq had no patent on that. Saudai Arabia had nationally televised telethons to raise money for the Pal homicide bombers. Nobody else - inclding Iraq - did.

Rush is talking about that today? Good for him! Perhaps I should start listening to him!

Let me put it this way. If you wanted to go after organized crime, would you target one person in one crime family in one city?

Of course not. What would that solve?

Taking down John Gotti didn't end the mafia did it?

What Bush is doing is COMPREHENSIVE. He's going after terrorism, not just one guy in one "crime family". And you know what? He's right. It's the way we need to approach the problem.

What Kerry would have us do is send 100K troops into Afghanistan to stand there and look at each other while states like Iraq fund, equip, train, and house the terrorists who hit us.

Bush is right on. So are his military people. Go after them with the right tools to do the job. Military, financial, intelligence, covert. Whatever. But we are SUNK if we don't realize that they are ALL in on the same anti-American, anti-Western effort.

The Japanese bombed us at Pearl Harbor but we fought a war against Germany and Italy. Iraq was part of the "axis" independent of any "direct" involvement in 9/11. Iraq had sufficient acts of war against us to warrant an invasion in 1998. But our previous president had OTHER priorities. Just as HIM why he met with Monica Lewinsky more times than he met with his CIA chief.

Go ahead, pester him not the people who are trying to save YOUR way of life.

This is an amazing exchange and defeats Dayton’s argument. Dayton did not challenge the fact the Iraq was involved in terrorism in Israel, but shrugged it off as “everyone was doing it,” leaps of logic indeed.

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere?

This is going to be a long hard road. Al Qaeda is fighting fiercely in Afghanistan with the Taliban and makes up 90% of the suicide attacks in Iraq. Democracy, economic growth, and education are the biggest threats to Al Qaeda and the extremism they represent. As Iraq and Afghanistan get on their feet and are able to defend themselves, the US can turn its attention to other problems such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Hopefully the US and UK can fight through the cynicism and the ideology of appeasement that could sidetrack the war.

Who did this terrible deed?

"Terrible" indeed! When was war not terrible? But on a human scale, the London events are no more terrible than the destruction continually wrought by U.S. and British forces in Iraq, nor does their cost in blood appear to exceed that of a typical Israeli army raid on a refugee camp. On current evidence, I believe, the perpetrators are radical Islamists.

Why did they do this?

Because these people are fighting a war, and Britain is among their enemies. That is not because they hate British freedoms or despise the quantity of skin displayed by British women. If what they actually say is to be believed, it is because they are convinced that war is necessary to limit the expansion of U.S. and other Western power in their homelands, and in particular to restrain U.S. military, financial and political support of Israel.

It is critically important that everyone in the United States and Britain understand that. Hate is not a cause of war. War, even war by such means as these, is only waged for essential ends, and because there appears to be no other way to achieve those ends.

There is plenty of hate, of course. War engenders hate and, unfortunately, hate is useful in war.

Why London?

Well, why did the Germans bomb London? Because London politically and economically is the most desirable target in Britain. It is the seat of British power; it is the biggest city; it is the major port of an island nation. Also from the viewpoint of a terrorist, London is an easy sea in which to swim.

Why the transit system?

Probably because it seemed to promise the biggest effect for a given degree of human and other resource expenditure.

Why now?

Probably simply because the preparations were ready. Probably not because of the G-8 meeting.

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere?

So long as this war proceeds (by which I mean the war between the Islamists and the United States), to prevent such attacks essentially nothing can be done short of the institution of draconian police measures, the social cost of which would be much greater than the direct effects of future attacks. The war could, however, be brought to a fairly early conclusion by (1) a radical change in U.S. policy toward Israel/Palestine; (2) U.S. and British withdrawal from Iraq; (3) steep reduction in U.S. and British military presence elsewhere in the Middle East; (4) an end to U.S. support of such regimes as that of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. I think, however, that the Palestinian question is perhaps the most critical.

So, in other words, if the west surrenders, the Islamists will stop?

Nice try. I ain't buying it.

We should stick by Israel because they are the only democracy in the region. Palestine is a PAWN that is being used by the Islamist who want far more then a mere Palestinian state (which has been promised by George W. Bush!).

The social cost of doing nothing (as you apparently advocate) is more and more terrorist attacks on innocents.

The lines are drawn. I say draw down and take them down.

There is no other way.

There's certainly a lot of rationalization in this thread for what the savages did. Yes, that's right...savages. They are not fighting a war in the same linguistic or literal sense that we are. The people who committed this atrocity are blood thirsty savages propelled by a perverted worship of hate and murder, they are beneath my referring to them as human except in the most base scientific sense.

They are not 'engaged in a war', they did not 'target London' for any other reason than publicity and murder. They're only regret, I'm sure, is that they did not kill more innocent Londoners.

Who did this terrible deed?
I guess the official verdict is still out, but we can probably narrow down the short list.....to about......one.

Why London?
Publicity, fracture an alliance, density of innocent civilians.....

Why the transit system?
See above.

Strange that you don't quote the innocent casualties inflicted by Iraqi and foreign insurgents, Taliban and palestinian terrorists...which far outstrip the casualties you mention. Not to mention the intentional targeting of innocents by the groups I mentioned.

Before we get to the main event let's address the sideshow.



By "conservative Christian white males" do you mean those like Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Rudolph, Paul Hill and the violent extremists of The Army of God? Naah. Probably wasn't them. This time anyway.



Speaking of a few getting worked up in an overly irrational way, there are a few overly partisan posters who never take a day off and never miss a chance to bash mindlessly away at their usual suspects of Democrats and liberals. They're still pulling out the bodies, counting the dead and trying to treat the wounded in London, but over here a tragedy gets pimped out to score political points.

It only goes to show that there's nothing so mean that someone can't try to twist it to serve their own petty ends. Don't be a part of the solution. Be part of the problem. That sounds a lot like a tactic the terrorists would appreciate.

To the more relevant questions at hand:

1. An Al Qaeda cell more likely than not.

2. The idea of terrorists is to show they can strike with impunity and without fear of retaliation or punishment. Tony Blair put it correctlywhen he said the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize.

3. The British have been America's staunchest allies in the War On Terrorism and it was only a matter of time before they got hit. The cowardly scum that pulled off this act should have read a history book. The relationship between England and America has been tested before and if it could withstand the Nazis it will withstand Al Qaeda as well.

4. In the United States it was airplanes turned into bombs. In Spain it was commuter trains that were targeted. In England, they went after the subway system and a bus. It would seem that the terrorists are adapting to the reactionary steps taken by governments to defend themselves and essentially hitting where they aren't.

5. The G-8 summit and the terrorist attack is a sure case of cause and effect. The fact that London had just been awarded the 2012 Olympics is just an macabre coincidence. The terrorists probably got a sick laugh out of it.

6. Well, I don't think you can kill every terrorist and foil every plot. The terrorists can lose 99 times. They only have to succeed once to win. The idea that you can win a war against terror only by killing the terrorists is like trying to empty the ocean with a spoon. Yes, you have to find and neutralize the enemy, but you have to dry up their financial, tactical and equipment support network as well.

It's easy for armchair generals to say that you can just knock down any door and drag out the terrorists and their supporters by the scruff of the neck, but what if that door happens to be attached to a foreign embassy? How far can any one nation go before it either goes too far or not far enough?

carlitoswhey:

We've spent at least a trillion dollars on fighting terrorism during the past 3 years. That is about how much we spend on poverty relief in 2 decades.

Also, my argument rests mainly on the distribution of compassion. Whenever first world civilians die on home soil, everyone seems to think that some horrible catastrophic event has occurred. Well maybe it has, but compared to whats happening abroad its nothing. In essence, we are only caring about the people we can most relate to... (which is why I gave up patriotism years ago).

Hugo:

Them people dying from extreme poverty need to get themselves a job. It is the primary purpose of government to defend it's citizens from internal and external aggressors, not feed the slothful.

I'm afraid the entire world isn't like the US. Jobs aren't easy to come by, and the "lucky" few who get them end up working for starvation wages, with 14 hour work days (plus an occasional 20 hour work shift), through 7 day work weeks (no days off ever), with terrible working conditions, and with common beatings by superiors. Stuff we buy which is made abroad, is cheap for a reason. As a whole however people starve not because of unemployment, but because of famine and political instability taking away farm produce.

I am betting most of those people on the transit vehicles were going to work. They weren't looking for a handout.

They were going to some office to sit comfortably in an air conditioned room with a comfy chair. The worst part of their jobs would be boredom.

In order to stop terrorism you have to kill terrorists while addressing the legitimate concerns of the population that the terrorists spring from.

Their radicals, they cant be reasoned with. The only feasible way of pleasing them would be to leave them (or rather their countries) alone.

Yeah? So why do you suppose they haven't already done so?


The simple, but telling difference is that such a day as this is every day in Iraq.


Actually, I'm not sure you do... especially given that my attitude towards the US government has nothing to do with this issue.

My contention lies in the double standards I perceive in Tony Blair's attitude towards civilian deaths. He himself is quite prepared to accept civilian deaths in Iraq and yet he condenms them in London.

I guess citizens of London are worth more than citizens of Baghdad to Tony Blair...


On the whole I agree with this. I think that the terrorism we are seeing today is essentially a strategy conceived in the heart of the Arabic world as a necessary course of action for the removal of western, particularly American, domination of the middle east.

And I am not at all convinced that Islam is anything but a tool to that end.


History demonstrates clearly that religion has often been used by unscrupulous men and women to justify their own agenda's.

One might just as easily say the same thing about the Conquistadors, the Inquisition, Catherine de Medici or GW Bush. Any one, any where who uses religion as any sort of justification for any sort of political action, violent or not, is in fact, abusing that religion. The problem is not religion.

The problem is people abusing religion, and any other ideology, to justify killing innocent people.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


We are indeed putting vast resources into 'killing them'.

Is it making a difference?

(other than to those men and women who sell weapons)


editted for spelling

Let me address the one sentence that was on topic, not the yuppie working Westerners deserve to die so we can support lazy third-worlders that constituted the rest of the post. I actually agree that a more hands off approach to the Middle East would be in our best interest. The Cold War is over, our relationship with Israel is now a handicap. The nations of the Middle East will sell us oil even if we do not have a presence in the Middle East. When you look at practically every nation with a populace greater than 15% Islamic you will find nations in turmoil where Islamic fascists are terrorizing those who oppose an Islamic fundamentalist order. Let us let the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Israel and soon to be Europe (some people think we got problems with hispanic immigrants ) We don't need to be the world's policeman.

Having said that we cannot give the fundamentalists a taste of victory. The Shah of Iran's demise created an environment for the Islamic terrorism we see today. A victory for the terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan will lead to an increase in terrorism across the globe. When you find yourself in the middle of a lake you can't stop swimming.

Third worlders aren't lazy, thats a fact. They work harder then we do, and your the one who brought it up.

As for the rest of your post, I don't really see how we can withdraw from the Middle East without giving the terrorists a taste of victory. What ostensible excuse could we possibly use?

It seems like the answers to the first 5 questions is almost the same from everyone, so I don't see any purpose in repeating what everyone else is saying.

However there is a lot of disagreement on the the following question:

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere?

From the various AD debaters there are answers that vary from attacking Saudi Arabia,bombing every Muslin country in the ME, and about anything else you can imagine.

Sorry to say this, but there is no short answer to stop this conflict of ideology between the West and the ME.

Sorry but the Genie is out of the bottle. Our great leader has issued the famous call:Bring them on. So they are replying to his statement much to the regret of a lot of people.

Much to my amusement we have the following statement from an AD debater.



1. Do you really honestly believe that we are keeping terrorist resources tied up in Iraq. How many people does it take to commit a terrorist act? How much money does it take to buy the explosives? I am sure the "poppy" crop in Afghanistan is more than sufficient to bankroll these acts.

2. And as for your second point. I believe Al Qaeda has the ability to fight on multiple fronts. It is the United States that doesn't have the ability (financial or physical manpower) to fight on multiple fronts.

But on the positive side, I can sleep peacefully tonight because my leader said: We are taking the fight to them so we won't have to fight them in the USA.

Oh yes, the terrorist are in the death throes and we have them on the run.

I guess the old saying: If you keep telling a lie long enough people will believe it.

Most third-worlders suffer from culturally induced laziness. That is a fact, accept it. Any cure to the third-world problems must first address this problem.

The point is we cannot leave Iraq and Afghanistan until we have governments in place that can resist the Islamic fundies. When you are in the middle of the lake you can't stop swimming.

Most third-worlders suffer from culturally induced laziness. That is a fact, accept it. Any cure to the third-world problems must first address this problem.

Then how do you explain the fact that the jobs they do are infinitely harder and more painful then jobs we do? Lazy people don't work 365 days a year, and lazy people don't work occasionally for 20 hours straight. Desperation makes a person work very hard indeed.

The point is we cannot leave Iraq and Afghanistan until we have governments in place that can resist the Islamic fundies. When you are in the middle of the lake you can't stop swimming.

This has do with instability giving rise to authoritarianism. Instability creates desperation, and that in turn causes people to lose their morals, as the overwelming desire of the desperate is to meet their fundamental needs: Food and Water.

Poverty was the main reason why Saddam was able to take power. Every year, over a 100,000 Iraqis die of starvation, and due to the instability this caused, no government in a Iraq was able to consolidate its power for long, before Saddam. Governments can maintain power in one of two ways: Fear or Appeasement. Building a strong economy takes a decades, so none of the governments could appease the Iraqi people in the short term. Due to this they invariably got otherthrown. Because appeasement was impossible, only someone who ruled through fear (like Saddam) could say in power long. Our operations in Iraq have been mainly focused on the destruction of the insurgency, and the creation of a democratic government. However, nothing we do will last, unless we confront the main long term cause of instability: Poverty. This is main reason why poor countries have difficulty developing; because rulers who rule through fear tend not to care about the overall living standard of their people. In short they are selfish. Also any country with a violent population of over 15% is going to have a very difficulty time maintaining order without resorting to severe violence.

Any strategy based on plugging up only proximate causes, is doomed for failure.