T Nation

Near London Bombings

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287292,00.html
Just one link of course. But I figure it was worth starting a thread. What do you want to guess that the perpetrators are gay jewish rabbi’s claiming to be muslims working for al kay-duh?

Two car bombs found in West End
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6255960.stm

Two car bombs found in London
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2114743,00.html

Makkun

Thankfully they didn’t explode.

As a Demo Specialist, this is pretty disturbing to me. The amount of low pressure explosives that were in the trunk of this unsuspecting car is to say the least silly. It is sheer luck that this didn’t explode. I can only attribute this to al-ka-Duh b/c any IRA member worth his salt would have exploded the F***K out of his target w/ the redundancy built into this system.

All praise and homage to his name–

Did treating terrorism like it’s like a criminal problem, and not a world wide clash of ideologies, actually work yet again? That’s weird. Everyone knows that can’t possibly work. Only bombing and occupying other countries can prevent terrorism.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Did treating terrorism like it’s like a criminal problem, and not a world wide clash of ideologies, actually work yet again? That’s weird. Everyone knows that can’t possibly work. Only bombing and occupying other countries can prevent terrorism.[/quote]

This is too good – and I’m sure Brad agrees with it all…

[i]Folks, I just spent three hours surfing the net and did I learn a lot! Did you know that most of the news we get is controlled by the Bu$hies? Let me enlighten you about today’s so-called terrorist bombing attempt in London:

  1. There is no proof that this was terrorism. With Blair gone, there IS no more terrorism in the UK. This was obviously just someone’s car, probably belonging to a nail salesman, who kept a lot of samples in his car. He was on his way to a barbecue, of course, which explains the propane. And he needed the extra gas, too, because - hello! - he was driving a gas-guzzler (instead of a hybrid, which is really mean-spirited).

So in effect, this was some right-wing, global warming-enabling carpenter on his way to char little animals for his own gratification.

  1. Are we not supposed to notice it’s the first full day of Gordon Brown’s administration? This is a very CONVENIENT time for George Bush to claim terrorism is continuing. Tony Blair, obviously knew about this in advance and in a cowardly fashion, and at the behest of his Bu$h Yankee overlords, left office this week.

  2. Admirably, the alleged bombers chose England - so anyone injured would receive free health care. If a bomb would have gone off in, say, New York City, imagine all the performance artists and stand up comics who might have been injured. Surely, as Michael Moore would attest, they’d be turned away from the ER.

  3. It’s also good they chose a Mercedes instead of the subway. Bombing public transportation would have sent the wrong environmental message. Targeting a symbol of conspicuous consumption sends a chilling message to physicians everywhere.

  4. The car was parked outside a bar called ‘Tiger Tiger,’ which highlights the near extinction of that species. That can’t be a bad thing.

  5. The fact that the bomb did not go off demonstrates the inequity in standards of science education for ethnic minorities.

  6. Clearly these people responsible are angry at us and I am proposing a minute’s silence and formation of steering committee for us all to consider what we as individuals can do to make these people less angry.

Your Friend,
Greg[/i]

[Note to Brad: It’s a parody.]

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Did treating terrorism like it’s like a criminal problem, and not a world wide clash of ideologies, actually work yet again? That’s weird. Everyone knows that can’t possibly work. Only bombing and occupying other countries can prevent terrorism.[/quote]

It didn’t work, we were lucky enough that, for some reason, the shit didn’t go off.

It amazes me that people like you don’t see this as a very legitimate worldwide concern that needs to be handled as such. These people want your head on a stake, and no amount of fingerpointing at Bush or apologizing for being a Westerner is going to change that.

I have a sickening feeling in my gut that this problem is just beginning, that we haven’t seen ANYTHING yet. And while Bush has stirred the pot, he didn’t provide the ingredients. This shit has been in the works for awhile and is just now coming to a head…And if you’re not scared of it, you’re living in ignorance.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This is too good – and I’m sure Brad agrees with it all…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-gutfeld/seven-things-we-now-know-_b_54400.html[/quote]

That was not particularly witty and had nothing to do with anything…

[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
It didn’t work, we were lucky enough that, for some reason, the shit didn’t go off.

It amazes me that people like you don’t see this as a very legitimate worldwide concern that needs to be handled as such. These people want your head on a stake, and no amount of fingerpointing at Bush or apologizing for being a Westerner is going to change that.

I have a sickening feeling in my gut that this problem is just beginning, that we haven’t seen ANYTHING yet. And while Bush has stirred the pot, he didn’t provide the ingredients. This shit has been in the works for awhile and is just now coming to a head…And if you’re not scared of it, you’re living in ignorance.[/quote]

The only thing a rational person has to fear is his own government.

The threat of worldwide terrorism, elevated as it may be at this time in history, is still not the biggest threat facing the West. The biggest threat, in my mind, and the most realistic one, is that the U.S. will go bankrupt through it’s pursuit of imperialist policies and plunge the entire world into the worst economic crisis in history. This will, in turn, pave the way for the establishment of world socialism.

The terrorists, if they are here, are small in number and in hiding. Most of them are thousands of miles away. The police force and Army National Guard, on the other hand, are right at your doorstep. When the shit hits the fan, you’ll be getting your ass beat by John Law, not Mohammed Ackbar.

[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Did treating terrorism like it’s like a criminal problem, and not a world wide clash of ideologies, actually work yet again? That’s weird. Everyone knows that can’t possibly work. Only bombing and occupying other countries can prevent terrorism.

It didn’t work, we were lucky enough that, for some reason, the shit didn’t go off.

It amazes me that people like you don’t see this as a very legitimate worldwide concern that needs to be handled as such. These people want your head on a stake, and no amount of fingerpointing at Bush or apologizing for being a Westerner is going to change that.

I have a sickening feeling in my gut that this problem is just beginning, that we haven’t seen ANYTHING yet. And while Bush has stirred the pot, he didn’t provide the ingredients. This shit has been in the works for awhile and is just now coming to a head…And if you’re not scared of it, you’re living in ignorance.

[/quote]

Ouch.

Very true.

Wanted to salute the British Police. Sounds like one of their guys saved a bunch of lives.

If anyone knows him, tell him the Good Guys over here salute you.

JeffR

[quote]Valentinius wrote:
As a Demo Specialist, this is pretty disturbing to me. The amount of low pressure explosives that were in the trunk of this unsuspecting car is to say the least silly. It is sheer luck that this didn’t explode. I can only attribute this to al-ka-Duh b/c any IRA member worth his salt would have exploded the F***K out of his target w/ the redundancy built into this system.

All praise and homage to his name–[/quote]

Really? I saw some terrorism expert tonight who said something about the bomb being an incendiary device as opposed to an explosive device(?)and would have fucked up anyone in the car but would have a relatively small blast radius as well as small amounts of shrapnel.

Anyways, just to keep things in perspective…when you put terrorism in perspective it kills only a TINY fraction of people every year and is completely overshadowed by deaths from car accidents, drugs, murders, etc…

So their are crazy Muslims now?

More like crazy Jewslims, amirite?

Serious:

I’m thankful they didn’t explode. I have family that lives near the London theater district…

[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
I have a sickening feeling in my gut that this problem is just beginning, that we haven’t seen ANYTHING yet. And while Bush has stirred the pot, he didn’t provide the ingredients. This shit has been in the works for awhile and is just now coming to a head…And if you’re not scared of it, you’re living in ignorance. [/quote]

International terrorism is a serious threat. But to jump into the scare category is not constructive at all. Worse, it leads to unnecessary bloodshed and irrational behavior (see Irak and how much harder it would have been to sell the war had 9/11 not occurred)

The Americo-British chose to unleash the world’s mightiest war machine on a problem that is the domain of intelligence services and the police.

You’re not the only one Ben-Laden and his followers are after. They’re after anyone that doesn’t ascribe to their dark ideology. That includes me, along with over 90% of Muslims.

Succumb not to fear. It does more damage than good.

[quote]lixy wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
I have a sickening feeling in my gut that this problem is just beginning, that we haven’t seen ANYTHING yet. And while Bush has stirred the pot, he didn’t provide the ingredients. This shit has been in the works for awhile and is just now coming to a head…And if you’re not scared of it, you’re living in ignorance.

International terrorism is a serious threat. But to jump into the scare category is not constructive at all. Worse, it leads to unnecessary bloodshed and irrational behavior (see Irak and how much harder it would have been to sell the war had 9/11 not occurred)

The Americo-British chose to unleash the world’s mightiest war machine on a problem that is the domain of intelligence services and the police.

You’re not the only one Ben-Laden and his followers are after. They’re after anyone that doesn’t ascribe to their dark ideology. That includes me, along with over 90% of Muslims.

Succumb not to fear. It does more damage than good.[/quote]

Saddam Hussein was a real problem that needed to be handled. Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers who blew themsleves up and took innocent civilians with them. Saddam was responsible for the deaths of over a million people.

Saddam spread death and destruction over a large area of the earths surface. What is irrational is saying was not a danger.

There are over a billion muslims in this world, if only ten percent of them support Alqaeda that is over one hundred million potential terrorists.

What is irratioanl is thinking we are going to have any kind of real effect by doing nothing till there is an attack. Then send out a few cops to try to make an arrest and haul someone back for a trial. Good luck to the cop who get stuck with that assignment.

We are in a war and the people organising attacks on us need to be taken out. It is wishful thinking to believe that if we just treat it as a nuisance rather than an existential threat, that the threat will be reduced.

The Clinton doctrine of don’t send in troops because it hurts opinion polls was a failure. The Clinton doctrine of making a single attack with cruise missiles so he could say “I tried to kill him” was gutless and it made Alqaeda bolder. The cruise missile attack was just throwing money at the problem. The only thing these people will respect is a man with a gun coming to kill them.

[quote]SouthernBrew wrote:
Really? I saw some terrorism expert tonight who said something about the bomb being an incendiary device as opposed to an explosive device(?)and would have fucked up anyone in the car but would have a relatively small blast radius as well as small amounts of shrapnel.

Anyways, just to keep things in perspective…when you put terrorism in perspective it kills only a TINY fraction of people every year and is completely overshadowed by deaths from car accidents, drugs, murders, etc…

[/quote]

Interesting, I’m not sure how compressed propane in a tank is considered incendiary. Maybe I missed something in class. I’m not sure where you saw this expert at, but things are called Improvised Explosive Devices for a reason. You may want to take note of the Explosive part of that description.

And thanks for keeping things in perspective for me, maybe it’ll be like lightning and strike you next.

Allahu Akbar

[quote]lixy wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
I have a sickening feeling in my gut that this problem is just beginning, that we haven’t seen ANYTHING yet. And while Bush has stirred the pot, he didn’t provide the ingredients. This shit has been in the works for awhile and is just now coming to a head…And if you’re not scared of it, you’re living in ignorance.

International terrorism is a serious threat. But to jump into the scare category is not constructive at all. Worse, it leads to unnecessary bloodshed and irrational behavior (see Irak and how much harder it would have been to sell the war had 9/11 not occurred)

The Americo-British chose to unleash the world’s mightiest war machine on a problem that is the domain of intelligence services and the police.

You’re not the only one Ben-Laden and his followers are after. They’re after anyone that doesn’t ascribe to their dark ideology. That includes me, along with over 90% of Muslims.

Succumb not to fear. It does more damage than good.[/quote]

Too bad he hasn’t gotten you yet.

Thanks for the message of peace today there Yoda.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
lixy wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
I have a sickening feeling in my gut that this problem is just beginning, that we haven’t seen ANYTHING yet. And while Bush has stirred the pot, he didn’t provide the ingredients. This shit has been in the works for awhile and is just now coming to a head…And if you’re not scared of it, you’re living in ignorance.

International terrorism is a serious threat. But to jump into the scare category is not constructive at all. Worse, it leads to unnecessary bloodshed and irrational behavior (see Irak and how much harder it would have been to sell the war had 9/11 not occurred)

The Americo-British chose to unleash the world’s mightiest war machine on a problem that is the domain of intelligence services and the police.

You’re not the only one Ben-Laden and his followers are after. They’re after anyone that doesn’t ascribe to their dark ideology. That includes me, along with over 90% of Muslims.

Succumb not to fear. It does more damage than good.

Saddam Hussein was a real problem that needed to be handled. Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers who blew themsleves up and took innocent civilians with them. Saddam was responsible for the deaths of over a million people.

Saddam spread death and destruction over a large area of the earths surface. What is irrational is saying was not a danger.

There are over a billion muslims in this world, if only ten percent of them support Alqaeda that is over one hundred million potential terrorists.

What is irratioanl is thinking we are going to have any kind of real effect by doing nothing till there is an attack. Then send out a few cops to try to make an arrest and haul someone back for a trial. Good luck to the cop who get stuck with that assignment.

We are in a war and the people organising attacks on us need to be taken out. It is wishful thinking to believe that if we just treat it as a nuisance rather than an existential threat, that the threat will be reduced.

The Clinton doctrine of don’t send in troops because it hurts opinion polls was a failure. The Clinton doctrine of making a single attack with cruise missiles so he could say “I tried to kill him” was gutless and it made Alqaeda bolder. The cruise missile attack was just throwing money at the problem. The only thing these people will respect is a man with a gun coming to kill them.[/quote]

Did we go in to topple Saddam? I could have sworn it was because of WMDs…

Saddam had very little to do with terrorism. Terrorism had nothing to do with Iraq before the war.

If we wanted to go after terrorists, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan seem to be where they were all hiding.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
The only thing a rational person has to fear is his own government.

The threat of worldwide terrorism, elevated as it may be at this time in history, is still not the biggest threat facing the West. The biggest threat, in my mind, and the most realistic one, is that the U.S. will go bankrupt through it’s pursuit of imperialist policies and plunge the entire world into the worst economic crisis in history. This will, in turn, pave the way for the establishment of world socialism.

The terrorists, if they are here, are small in number and in hiding. Most of them are thousands of miles away. The police force and Army National Guard, on the other hand, are right at your doorstep. When the shit hits the fan, you’ll be getting your ass beat by John Law, not Mohammed Ackbar. [/quote]

I agree with a lot of this. The United States has horrendous debt problems. Just like post-WWI, when England could no longer police the globe due to near-bankruptcy, the world will collapse when we pull back. The world will mostly revert to barbarism and nationalism (Japanese style).

America might become a national socialist state, but the culture would clash with that kind of government. Americans are used to WAY more freedom than the pre-1940s Germans ever were.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

America might become a national socialist state, but the culture would clash with that kind of government. Americans are used to WAY more freedom than the pre-1940s Germans ever were.

[/quote]

What makes you think that?

We have enough people on this board welcoming Guliani`s candidacy, are more than welcome to sacrifice liberties for a false sense of security and believe bombing other countries will solve the US interior problems.

Combine that with US patriotism, manifest destiny, Gods own country, the mindless adoration of the military no matter what they do or whose orders they follow and you are off to an excellent start.

God forbid a small nuke did explode in the LA or NY harbour and you are there before you can say national socialist american workers party…

They will have another name though, in part to have a flashy acronym.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Saddam Hussein was a real problem that needed to be handled. [/quote]

Yet, despite his belligerence and ruthlessness, you had no problem with the guy in the 80’s. In fact, you armed the bastard.

True. But that doesn’t associate him with Al-Qaeda in any way.

Actually, a lot more than that. The Iraq-Iran war he started - with your benediction - claimed 2 million lives.

Saddam was a danger to his own people. Other than that, and right after he had just come out of a very costly war with Iran, he tasted the US military might and then was under siege for over a decade. To the American or Brit, Saddam represented no threat whatsoever. Of course, your leadership would have you believe otherwise.

More importantly, why did you bring him up? What’s he gotta do with Al-Qaeda?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you end up with a lot more terrorists in Iraq than you started with?

It’s ludicrous to think that such terrorist organizations as Al-Qaeda can be defeated militarily. They feed on the violence you throw at them.

What’s irrational is pursuing the current strategy which by any standard has exacerbated the problem.

Nothing wrong with that.

Existential threat? Are we still talking about the bunch of bearded guys in caves? You lost me.

Don’t give Clinton the credit for making “Al-Qaeda bolder”. Any group of people who kill themselves voluntarily for a living are bold enough as it is.

I don’t know why you talk about “throwing money at the problem”. You probably would wanna check the amount of money you spend on Bush’s endeavor.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

Did we go in to topple Saddam? I could have sworn it was because of WMDs…
[/quote]

Yes we did. It was our national policy. We said we would not invade if Saddam and his sons left the country.

Saddam trained, harbored and sponsored terrorists.

The man used to have check signing ceremonies for the families of suicide bombers.

[quote]

If we wanted to go after terrorists, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan seem to be where they were all hiding.[/quote]

And when we work with their governments to arrest them we are criticized. Should we invade instead? What are you proposing here or are you just making hollow criticism?