London in chaos after terrorist blasts; 45+ killed

chonabot · July 7, 2005

If your a moderate muslim with any decency, stand up now and tell us exactly what you think of these atrocities. If we can't hear you we'll take it that you are against us. Reap whats coming religion of peace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great! World War 3 .

chonabot · July 7, 2005

. I sort of looked at the Islam religious book and it is truly crap. The same applies to other religions as well. Daveyo

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Spoken like a true intellectual.....

Boon Mee · July 7, 2005

If your a moderate muslim with any decency, stand up now and tell us exactly what you think of these atrocities. If we can't hear you we'll take it that you are against us. Reap whats coming religion of peace.

Great! World War 3 .

We're already in it...

How do these words sound to you?

"Rejoice, Islamic nation. Rejoice, Arab world. The time has come for vengeance against the Zionist crusader government of Britain in response to the massacres Britain committed in Iraq and Afghanistan... We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan."

Edited July 7, 2005 by Boon Mee

chonabot · July 7, 2005

If your a moderate muslim with any decency, stand up now and tell us exactly what you think of these atrocities. If we can't hear you we'll take it that you are against us. Reap whats coming religion of peace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great! World War 3 .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We're already in it...

How do these words sound to you?

"Rejoice, Islamic nation. Rejoice, Arab world. The time has come for vengeance against the Zionist crusader government of Britain in response to the massacres Britain committed in Iraq and Afghanistan... We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The words of extremists , and today the actions of these pieces of sh1t.

But World War 3 ?, not yet , not ever I hope.

Which countries are responsible for these extremists?

Do we attack over 70 countries which currently practice Islam as their main religion?

Boon Mee · July 7, 2005

If your a moderate muslim with any decency, stand up now and tell us exactly what you think of these atrocities. If we can't hear you we'll take it that you are against us. Reap whats coming religion of peace.

Great! World War 3 .

We're already in it...

How do these words sound to you?

"Rejoice, Islamic nation. Rejoice, Arab world. The time has come for vengeance against the Zionist crusader government of Britain in response to the massacres Britain committed in Iraq and Afghanistan... We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan."

The words of extremists , and today the actions of these pieces of sh1t.

But World War 3 ?, not yet , not ever I hope.

Which countries are responsible for these extremists?

Do we attack over 70 countries which currently practice Islam as their main religion?

The reason I said we're in WW3 is the amount of geography this war on terror covers. Anyhow, pretty bad tactical mistake there on the part of those bragging today - Iraq is unpopular, Afghanistan is not. Call for withdrawal from Iraq, and you're merely echoing public sentiment; call for withdrawal from Afghanistan, and you suddenly remind everyone about the war on terror, Al Qaeda, bin Laden, Taliban - all the nasty things that even the French and the Russians are united against.

quiddity · July 7, 2005

"Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything." Harry Truman

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't mean any offense but I have to wonder why more people aren't pissed at Bush and Blair in this forum today. I dig the Truman and Churchill quotes but it's helpful to recall that those quotes were uttered by much greater leaders in much nobler times.

Apparently people are coming together in anger against today's event but seem not to be mentioning much about root causes. I'm sure that more of that will come in time but all of the posts suggesting rolling out the British flag and going out on the offensive seem to disregard the lessons of recent times.

The US, Britain and Australia are engaged in an awful war that, by ever mounting testimony, bore no direct relation to terrorism. Bush and Blair, albeit Bush more than Blair, tout their unpopular actions as ridding the world of terrorism. Do today's dreadful activities support such braggadocio? Do the increase in IED explosions in Iraq and more recently in Afghanistan?

I don't think we should sit back without recourse, but I view today, as sad as it truly is, as the result of awful policy. When Senator John Kerry ran in opposition to GW Bush for the American presidency, he pointed to the fact that had the money being used (and regularly increased) for the war in Iraq been directed solely at the then extant war on terrorism (e.g. in Afghanistan), we would almost certainly be much further along in our knowledge and the reduction of international terrorism.

I'm not touting the relative strengths of John Kerry and hope no one pursues a silly rant toward that end. It seems to me a sin that over $200 billion USD has been allotted to a war that many experts believe will reach half a trillion dollars, a war begun under false pretenses.

Some people in the forum have posted comments suggesting standing strong, fighting the good fight, and all such. I'd agree but I think that implies something different here. Popular opinion of Blair and Bush and of the war in Iraq have been generally quite awful for many months, even into the years. I believe this is the most worthy opinion and shouldn't be shaken simply because blood has been spilled on the homefront. If anything, I think it ought to strengthen that position. For this, we should stand strong.

Bush, in particular, invokes the victims and families affected by 9/11. He did this in an address from Fort Bragg a number of times to try to buttress the illusion which many Americans hold that Iraq and Bush's military adventures are all tied to terrorism. Interestingly, many of the families of 9/11 victims and many New York City residents abhor the war and feel that the US Government has responded extraordinarily inappropriately to the attacks. World opinion largely concurs. As awful a thing as today's events have been, they appear largely symptomatic of horrendous policy.

By the way, calling the issuers of today's attacks "ragheads" and "towelheads" is useless in ultimate understanding of the situation. The word "arrogance" comes to mind.

chonabot · July 7, 2005

For those who think all muslims are behind these extremists , perhaps we should be glad that they are not.

There are approx 1.4 billion Muslims in the world.

70% of Asia , Nearly 30% of Africa , and tens of millions dispersed across our globe. By attacking this religion , and perhaps in return increasing the unrest between us , we would surely be palying into the hands of these miscreants.

Perhaps the only way forward is to ask the Islamic superpowers to help unearth the despicable scum that seem to enjoy these barabaric acts ?

Or as Dave Yo might say , " Lets nuke'em! "

Boon Mee · July 7, 2005

For those who think all muslims are behind these extremists , perhaps we should be glad that they are not.
There are approx 1.4 billion Muslims in the world.

70% of Asia , Nearly 30% of Africa , and tens of millions dispersed across our globe. By attacking this religion , and perhaps in return increasing the unrest between us , we would surely be palying into the hands of these miscreants.

Perhaps the only way forward is to ask the Islamic superpowers to help unearth the despicable scum that seem to enjoy these barabaric acts ?

Or as Dave Yo might say , " Lets nuke'em! "

Perhaps Dave is considering what Iran will do with its nuclear bomb?

You know those guys are not going to just store the danm things!

The picture below was taken with a cell phone camera inside a subway tunnel.

Edited July 7, 2005 by Boon Mee

patsfangr · July 7, 2005

Call for withdrawal from Iraq, and you're merely echoing public sentiment; call for withdrawal from Afghanistan, and you suddenly remind everyone about the war on terror, Al Qaeda, bin Laden, Taliban - all the nasty things that even the French and the Russians are united against.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The French are against something? Other than Americans, I mean.

udon · July 7, 2005

One day, one of these cowards will yap, and the British police will get them.

My sympathy to all those injured and to the families of loved ones lost.

Their lives have been changed forever.

To say I'm outraged is an understatement.

patsfangr · July 7, 2005

"Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything." Harry Truman

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't mean any offense but I have to wonder why more people aren't pissed at Bush and Blair in this forum today. I dig the Truman and Churchill quotes but it's helpful to recall that those quotes were uttered by much greater leaders in much nobler times. 

Apparently people are coming together in anger against today's event but seem not to be mentioning much about root causes. I'm sure that more of that will come in time but all of the posts suggesting rolling out the British flag and going out on the offensive seem to disregard the lessons of recent times. 

The US, Britain and Australia are engaged in an awful war that, by ever mounting testimony, bore no direct relation to terrorism. Bush and Blair, albeit Bush more than Blair, tout their unpopular actions as ridding the world of terrorism. Do today's dreadful activities support such braggadocio? Do the increase in IED explosions in Iraq and more recently in Afghanistan? 

I don't think we should sit back without recourse, but I view today, as sad as it truly is, as the result of awful policy. When Senator John Kerry ran in opposition to GW Bush for the American presidency, he pointed to the fact that had the money being used (and regularly increased) for the war in Iraq been directed solely at the then extant war on terrorism (e.g. in Afghanistan), we would almost certainly be much further along in our knowledge and the reduction of international terrorism. 

I'm not touting the relative strengths of John Kerry and hope no one pursues a silly rant toward that end. It seems to me a sin that over $200 billion USD has been allotted to a war that many experts believe will reach half a trillion dollars, a war begun under false pretenses. 

Some people in the forum have posted comments suggesting standing strong, fighting the good fight, and all such. I'd agree but I think that implies something different here. Popular opinion of Blair and Bush and of the war in Iraq have been generally quite awful for many months, even into the years. I believe this is the most worthy opinion and shouldn't be shaken simply because blood has been spilled on the homefront. If anything, I think it ought to strengthen that position. For this, we should stand strong. 

Bush, in particular, invokes the victims and families affected by 9/11. He did this in an address from Fort Bragg a number of times to try to buttress the illusion which many Americans hold that Iraq and Bush's military adventures are all tied to terrorism. Interestingly, many of the families of 9/11 victims and many New York City residents abhor the war and feel that the US Government has responded extraordinarily inappropriately to the attacks. World opinion largely concurs. As awful a thing as today's events have been, they appear largely symptomatic of horrendous policy. 

By the way, calling the issuers of today's attacks "ragheads" and "towelheads" is useless in ultimate understanding of the situation. The word "arrogance" comes to mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While I don't agree with all that you said here, Quiddity, I vigorously applaud your intelligent approach to the situation. I favored going after Saddam, and still believe that it was the right thing to do. While it is clear that, having been significantly weakened by the first Gulf War, he was not an immediate danger to his neighbors, it is my firm belief that he would have once again become so. The man, and those closest to him, was a vile despot, and a definite threat to world peace. If not in 2002, then certainly within the decade.

That said, there is certainly validity to the arguement that a much greater effort could have been mounted in Afghanistan had all resources been directed there, rather than the much heavier focus on Iraq that we have had. It is my personal hope that we will see a swing in that direction, though I doubt it will happen while Bush is in office.

Most importantly, we must recongnize that terrorism will never be totally eliminated from the human race. It is vital that those who want to at least relegate it to the "nuisance level" it presented worldwide prior to the Gulf War must refrain from the wholesale condemnation of all people of a particular race or religion. It simply is not true that feelings of unrequiteable hatred for other races is imbued in any race. We must have the good sense to recognize that these are the acts of extremists within, primarily, the Arab Islamic world community. We must focus on identifying and destroying the individuals responsible, and not alienate those in that community who do not inherently bear us ill will.

Granted that it is a challenge not unlike picking the fly sh*t out of the pepper. But, if we are to have any hope for a reasonably peaceful world, it is the only proper way to address this current wave of terror.

treefrog · July 7, 2005

Quote

I can sympathise with this to some extent. Bush and Blair have shown poor judgement and appalling leadership skills over their unpopular and damaging invasion of Iraq. But let's face it - that particular action was all about the US getting revenge and saving face, not about preventing terrorism. I also agree that the muslim world, and in fact the world in general, have a lot to dislike about America and Britain and theie relentless imposition of their culture (movies, coca-cola, economic bullying) on many other countries. And I say this as a British non-Muslim.

HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT EXCUSE TERRORISM IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. It wasn't Blair or Bush who suffered today, or on 9/11. It was a lot of innocent people, including the children whose mum or dad didn't come home tonight. Every decent person in the world, Muslim or not, should be devestated and disgusted at so-called political violence directed against innocents. If people like Al-Quaeda have something to say, then they should say it in the proper forums - the UN for example - not with bombs, bullets and death. Do they really think Allah - the wise, the merciful, the compassionate - will reward them for these actions?

My heart goes out to all those poor people whose loved ones were killed or injured today.

NovaBlue05 · July 7, 2005

It's obvious that the war can't be about stopping or killing all terrorists. That would be impossible. Groups like Al Queda flourish because they are enabled by many...if not most..of the countries in the middle east and other countries beyond the M.E. I think one of the worse things these countries can fathom is having western troops...especially US troops, on their turf. I dont think Bush thinks invading Iraq is going to get rid of terrorism as much as send the message to the enabling countries that, if you are going to be a terrorist enabling country, you might have to put up with this shit as well. Perhaps some of these countries will have a lucid moment and decide that would be a hassle and humiliation they can live without and start to shun these groups. If a few nations start to do it, then Al Quedas world will get smaller as well as their financing. Once you hit them in their funding and their shelter, then IMO you may begin to get terrorism under control. I think Iraq was just a politically convenient target which served that purpose.

The US will be in Iraq in some military capacity for years. Establishment of an airbase in Iraq to serve as a present and future staging area will free the US from having to grovel to Saudi Arabia or Turkey for rights to land aircraft and troops. A "permanent" base hasn't been discussed as a goal...but if you are going to fight a "war on terror" , it makes sense to have a staging area in their backyard.

opothai · July 7, 2005

what happened today and in spain, america and elsewhere makes me sick sick sick

you can not fight terror with peacaful negotiation they will not listen

fight terror with terror i.e the powers that be know who the main idiots are so why not just quietly silence these , an army without direction is lost.

there are muslims out there that must know something if they want people to beleive that not all muslims are the same have some back bone and speak up.

how do people feel when you board a plane full of muslims, and now we must feel the same about buses and trains

this is a conservative post if i wrote what i felt this morning well i think you may never have read it

aletta · July 7, 2005

Do they still have the "ring of steel" in London.Seems some of the bombs were inside.

Boatabike · July 8, 2005

A lot of people seem to be responding to this with the expected gut reaction, anger, outrage etc. Understandable of course. Terror comes in many forms be it a suicide bomber or a B52 bomber both bring terror to thoes effected. Terror throughout the world has increased for many reasons, the majority of terrorists don't just wake up and decide that today they will go down the job center and see if there are any terror jobs on the board. They are normally forced into it by beliving they have a just cause. How many years has the middle east been the playground of western politics? How many years have certain countrys fu3ked around with this part of the world to their own ends. We reap what we have sown. I do not agree with any form of terror at all. I am still waiting to hear from friends in London, but for christ sake lets not start shouting crusade again like the muppet bush did b4. The gap between people of different faiths is already to wide, crusade ( religious fanatics just as bad as any musslim fanatic) can only widen the gap. Muslims are not responsible for this attack, terrorists are try to keep it in perspective please.

WhiteShiva · July 8, 2005

"Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything." Harry Truman

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't mean any offense but I have to wonder why more people aren't pissed at Bush and Blair in this forum today. I dig the Truman and Churchill quotes but it's helpful to recall that those quotes were uttered by much greater leaders in much nobler times. 

Apparently people are coming together in anger against today's event but seem not to be mentioning much about root causes. I'm sure that more of that will come in time but all of the posts suggesting rolling out the British flag and going out on the offensive seem to disregard the lessons of recent times. 

The US, Britain and Australia are engaged in an awful war that, by ever mounting testimony, bore no direct relation to terrorism. Bush and Blair, albeit Bush more than Blair, tout their unpopular actions as ridding the world of terrorism. Do today's dreadful activities support such braggadocio? Do the increase in IED explosions in Iraq and more recently in Afghanistan? 

I don't think we should sit back without recourse, but I view today, as sad as it truly is, as the result of awful policy. When Senator John Kerry ran in opposition to GW Bush for the American presidency, he pointed to the fact that had the money being used (and regularly increased) for the war in Iraq been directed solely at the then extant war on terrorism (e.g. in Afghanistan), we would almost certainly be much further along in our knowledge and the reduction of international terrorism. 

I'm not touting the relative strengths of John Kerry and hope no one pursues a silly rant toward that end. It seems to me a sin that over $200 billion USD has been allotted to a war that many experts believe will reach half a trillion dollars, a war begun under false pretenses. 

Some people in the forum have posted comments suggesting standing strong, fighting the good fight, and all such. I'd agree but I think that implies something different here. Popular opinion of Blair and Bush and of the war in Iraq have been generally quite awful for many months, even into the years. I believe this is the most worthy opinion and shouldn't be shaken simply because blood has been spilled on the homefront. If anything, I think it ought to strengthen that position. For this, we should stand strong. 

Bush, in particular, invokes the victims and families affected by 9/11. He did this in an address from Fort Bragg a number of times to try to buttress the illusion which many Americans hold that Iraq and Bush's military adventures are all tied to terrorism. Interestingly, many of the families of 9/11 victims and many New York City residents abhor the war and feel that the US Government has responded extraordinarily inappropriately to the attacks. World opinion largely concurs. As awful a thing as today's events have been, they appear largely symptomatic of horrendous policy. 

By the way, calling the issuers of today's attacks "ragheads" and "towelheads" is useless in ultimate understanding of the situation. The word "arrogance" comes to mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While I don't agree with all that you said here, Quiddity, I vigorously applaud your intelligent approach to the situation. I favored going after Saddam, and still believe that it was the right thing to do. While it is clear that, having been significantly weakened by the first Gulf War, he was not an immediate danger to his neighbors, it is my firm belief that he would have once again become so. The man, and those closest to him, was a vile despot, and a definite threat to world peace. If not in 2002, then certainly within the decade.

That said, there is certainly validity to the arguement that a much greater effort could have been mounted in Afghanistan had all resources been directed there, rather than the much heavier focus on Iraq that we have had. It is my personal hope that we will see a swing in that direction, though I doubt it will happen while Bush is in office.

Most importantly, we must recongnize that terrorism will never be totally eliminated from the human race. It is vital that those who want to at least relegate it to the "nuisance level" it presented worldwide prior to the Gulf War must refrain from the wholesale condemnation of all people of a particular race or religion. It simply is not true that feelings of unrequiteable hatred for other races is imbued in any race. We must have the good sense to recognize that these are the acts of extremists within, primarily, the Arab Islamic world community. We must focus on identifying and destroying the individuals responsible, and not alienate those in that community who do not inherently bear us ill will.

Granted that it is a challenge not unlike picking the fly sh*t out of the pepper. But, if we are to have any hope for a reasonably peaceful world, it is the only proper way to address this current wave of terror.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

patsfangr & quiddity - this is far too elaborate for the rest of us. Keep it simple!

Remember, you are "either with us or against us".....

Seriously, though - thanks for two very well written postings! You both bring up some very good points.

mouse · July 8, 2005

First of all my sincere condolences to those affected by the London tragedy. I hope that God will punish those responsible.

In my opinion ban all muslims from coming to the west angry.gif

I agree with this line of thinking but let us also turn it around and tell all Christians and Hebrews to stay out of the Islamic world.

Next, let us wait and see who did this. An unknown group???? I doubt it. Who has the most to gain from such an act right now?. Thinks about it. The coalition is failing, people are demonstarting against our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the other side (Islam) was actually gaining the moral high ground. Why would they do this and cause their enemy to be bolstered and encourage the western world to wipe them off the face of the earth.

"Mark my words - The truth is never what it seems!"

Tornado · July 8, 2005

I think they will get the ring leaders pretty quick (or know who it was). A terrorist attack of this size will leave a few mouths talking. The sheer scale of the operation would have to involve many people, the more the merrier in this case as someone will talk.

WISteve · July 8, 2005

And "Wag the Dog" as well Mouse!

Talk about a rediculous conspiracy theory!

My heart goes out to the the families and victims of this tragedy.

I think we all wish for swift and certain justice for this senseless act of violence.

~WISteve

mouse · July 8, 2005

And "Wag the Dog" as well Mouse!
Talk about a rediculous conspiracy theory!

Please be kind enough to read my thread again for I never made a conspiracy theory, I merely asked some valid questions and stated that "Mark my words - The truth is never what it seems!"

After all look who they tried to blame it on during the Spanish elections and how they tried to benefit from that horrific act.

Narachon · July 8, 2005

First New York, then Madrid and now London.

Maybe we just don't understand them enough?

I think we got off likely compared to the other two.

You hit that right on the head, Scampy.

With all due respect to those involved, The death toll in London could have been much higher. It was very fortunate that a great number of people managed to survive the explosion in the subway system over there. My Condolences to all those that died, and I hope everyone that survived are doing ok.

Heard about the news this morning on my way to work into Manhattan after I asked one of the heavily armed Homeland Security commandos standing guard outside the Jamaica Railroad/Subway/Airtrain Station Terminal. NYC is on a permanent state of Orange Alert (Just One reason, I think we lost the Olympic bid yesterday... )

I wonder how would London, let alone Bangkok , deal in the aftermath of a "9-11" level attack?

Hopefully, that won't ever come to pass. But today was a wake up call, me thinks..

Going off topic for a sec....

So Scampy, you're back in England now?

Didn't know, I haven't been around here much these past few months....

Narachon · July 8, 2005

unknown if the bombers were suicide bombers. cellphones couldnt be used in the tunnels to explode the bombs . possibly they had timers .
imagine something like this in the Nana or Patpong area ! chilling .

You forgot to mention Soi Cowboy!

Crushdepth · July 8, 2005

Funny how our President was raked over the coals for invading Iraq and he is still looked down upon, Now a Terrorist Incident has happend to the UK. Would the world be upset if Britian Invaded Iran??

Yes, he was raked over the coals, partly for lying. And it seems to me that Britain did invade Iraq already, thanks.

More violence will just generate more violence. Someone has to have the guts to stop 'fighting back' or it will never end.

bajajvivek · July 8, 2005

Terrorism has been a very old problem. I am not too old to see by myself the rise of these situations but as far as my memory goes, muslim fundamentalism has been a big big problem in Asia.

Talking about Afganisthan, It was US itself which provided money, weapons and support to fanatics in there bid to de-stablise Russia. They got successful in there venture but one thing they could not keep track of was that these muslim fanatics were preaching hate against whole of the European and US community. Afhganis fought with Americans with the weapons which were provided to them by America only.

did anybody ever wounder why only muslims are fighting against every other religion in the world??

I am not saying that all muslims are bad. I can never say that cause I've got a huge bunch of friends who are muslims, and all very close friends. I even had a muslim gf at one time. the only reason I can think is the difference of education. In poor countries, muslims are still taught Holy Koran rather than modern sciences. and in these institutions are developed religious fanatics.

I had a friend in my school who came from a very backward place where there was no proper education. his father who was a government official, did his best to give him good education and so sent him to a very good school in hostel. he was a bright kid and learned a good deal in school, but two months of summer holidays simply changed him everytime. whenever he came back from summer holidays, he bought with him the cheap tricks, cheap thoughts, and cheap language of the place where his parents were posted. because he had no company there at that place, he used to play with the street kids and learned all that stuff from there. this I can think as one of the reasons why sometimes even well educated people fall prey to fanatic education.

being an Indian, I've felt the heat of religious fundamentalism because of the continues support to religious terrorists by our neighbours Pakistan. Pakistan has still got a military government and democracy never actually prevailed there. and this my friends is the partner of US in war against Terror!!!!

If Moderate Muslims are really against these fanatics why don't they come openly against them? everytime there response is like they are just trying to save there back. I think its time for them to really think where exactly this attitude will take the world.

We are sitting on a heap of explosives. Just one good spart and the whole world will burn.

This world is our responsibility.

The_Moog · July 8, 2005

If Moderate Muslims are really against these fanatics why don't they come openly against them?

Because the moderate Islamic Politicans have relationships with Fundalmentalists, - eg they may have studied together .

When I was in Indonesia - Amien Rais was close to the Iraqis, Gus Dur was friends with the Iranians, Khatami.

GD told me that Abu Bakar Al Baasyir asked him to plead that Islamic Law be used in his trial (i.e presumably to exonerate him). 'Ok' said GD, 'but if you're found guilty, we get to stone you to death'....application swiftly withdrawn.

Unfortunately I never used that anecdote in my United Press days.

JemJem · July 8, 2005

It makes me so sad and angry that the combination of Islamist fascists (like Osama and and the like) and imperialist fascists (like Bush and the like) has messed up the world !

Jem

Insight · July 8, 2005

wonder if they are human at all...
<deleted> cowards...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said mate. There's a special place in h3ll where these fckers belong.

My full thoughts will follow in a few hours. Still reckon it's too soon right now.

Edited July 8, 2005 by Insight

Shivek · July 8, 2005

LONDON - Terror struck in the heart of London on Thursday as explosions ripped through three subway trains and blasted the roof off a crowded red double-decker bus. At least 37 people were killed and more than 700 wounded in the deadliest attack on the city since the blitz in World War II. British Prime Minister Tony Blair blamed Islamic extremists and said the bombings were designed to coincide with the opening in Scotland of a G-8 summit of the world's most powerful leaders. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the bombings -- which came the day after London won the bid to host the 2012 Olympics -- have the "hallmarks of an al-Qaida-related attack."

I'm said to hear that these bombings happened. But i think USA is involved in this and guess why? Bcoz they want to show countries that they will help the most and are the most powerful and rich. I dont think Al-Quaida has anything with this. Bcoz if it were Al Qaida they wud have done something worse than this.

mouse · July 8, 2005

If Moderate Muslims are really against these fanatics why don't they come openly against them? everytime there response is like they are just trying to save there back. I think its time for them to really think where exactly this attitude will take the world.

That is why they are called the silent majority. Why did the civilized world not come out against Idi Amin, Pol Pot or Germany until it was later in the game and millions had been brutally killed........ because it did not serve our interest. They will speak up eventually... hopefully it will not be too late!!

Sign In

London in chaos after terrorist blasts; 45+ killed

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US