• A reminder that Forum Moderator applications are currently still open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

After New York, Bali and Madrid, it's London's turn...

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fig

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
12,779
Reaction score
1,046
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/london.tube/index.html

Tactical mistake, here, though. Terrorist attacks are nasty, but they lose their effectiveness the more used to violent attacks your enemy nation is. Madrid hasn't seen much violence since the spanish civil war; tourists in indonesia the same, and New York very much the same (and Washington nothing serious since the civil war).

Comparedly, in the last century, London was almost razed to the ground by enemy attacks at least once; and they've faced terrorist attacks after terrorist attacks since then. England is the one country that stood almost alone against the Third Reich; Osama and his goones are nowhere near THAT scary.

37 dead and 700 wounded is bad. But it's not going to wound a country that has seen far worse.
 
Last edited:
I'm not well versed in IRA terrorism in London and the nearby towns. What sort of damage was inflicted and how recently has it occurred?
 
Not that recently, and not THAT heavy I don't think (though I'm not that well-informed), but it DID inflict damage.

However that changes nothing to the fact that London has withstood extreme-scale violence in living memory (as in, a number of people still alive yet remember), and smaller-scale violence since them to keep the memories alive.

Comparedly, the last time, say, the New York area saw anything more than gang wars and mafia operations was, what, circa 1776? (Madrid is a bit more recent, but they didn't see something on the V1/2 scale). And even then, it was nowhere near Blitz-style?
 
Let me say up front that I extend my condolences to the british people, the victims and their families.

And now the more insensitive part, so I'm sure I will get flamed and yelled at, but these are my immediate thoughts and I mean no disrespect to anyone:

The ironic thing is, this will problably affect American politics more than Europe.

People are already making comparisons to 9/11. Shouldn't Godwin's Law come into affect for that event, too someday? Looking at cable news, it looks nothing like what happened on 9-11. And the British don't seem to be reacting in a similar manner.

Thousands of people will not die, the skyline of London be permanently razed. These are just my immediate thoughts on watching this unfold.

Cable news stations are wetting their pants with joy. They can once again milk "terror! terror! terror!" twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week! Huzzah! The Bush administration is problably even more joyous that the American people will be fearful of more attacks on American soil! This means that no one will be reporting any misdeeds Karl Rove might have pulled, and the Democrats will be too cowed into submission to reject a single Supreme Court nomination in fear of looking "unpatriotic".

The White House is going to clothe itself in patriotism and nationalism and milk this attack for all the power it's fear can give them. They'll benefit more from this than Al Queda ever could.

No one will question if Blair and Bush caused the events leading to this by starting a largely unnecessary war.

No one will actually WANT to captue Osama Bin Ladin, despite these attacks. We'll happily let him have free reign, since the people who don't believe Saddam was the cause of 9/11 can easily be cowed into submission with his boogey-man like threat.

No one will dare suggest that this means Bush's "War on Terrah" is a failure"!


Well, that's what I was thinking about the political ramifications of this, as cruel and insensitive as they are. I apologize. I sympathize with the victims, their families, and all the people in London. But not those who will be profiting off this tragedy by using it's emotional tug to gain more power and influence when their actions problably caused it to come about in the first place . . .
 
Okay, here's my latest rant on the war on terror.

Today, the world blinked. We blinked and 70 people are dead because of it.

Here in America, I believe that we're next. We don't have any better protections than London. We could have the exact same thing happen in New York, Washington, Chicago, LA, etc. it doesn't really matter. If it could happen in London, it could happen in the US.

I believe BOTH parties have failed us in homeland security. They're too busy bickering and not doing what they should be doing which is making sure our country is protected. Our borders are unprotected. Our ports are unprotected. Our air ports are unprotected. This should be a wake up call America. Terrorism is far from dead and can happen anywhere.

First of all, this should be a sign that we need to raise our taxes to pre-Bush levels. It costs money to defend America. I say to anyone who isn't willing to do this "isn't it worth it to know your friends, your family, your neighbors, your country are better protected?".

Secondly, we need to seriously think of how to defend the US and the world against these people. If we do get more tax money, how and where do we spend it? What are the best investments?

Granted I'm only a Meteorology Major and know nothing about how to really fight the terrorists, but it seems like common sense that tax cuts and partisan politics aren't helping.
 
Get real, Big Al. There is no such thing as 100% security.
 
No but there is always room for improvement then. America could be safer than it is. That's what I'm getting at.

However, the problem we truly have isa that the terrorists are already in the U.S., Britian, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, etc. They are the real threat to us. We will never have perfect security but we can have better security (I won't say more because more =/= better).
 
And better security at what cost?

When is "more security" no longer worth the cost, when you can never have absolute security?
 
Like I said, we could stand to lose the Bush tax cuts if anything to get our budget better balanced. That money could go into hiring people needed to stop terrorists and to assist incase of terrorist attack. We've cut our first responders who are needed incase of attack. We could also stand to improve border patrols and port security. I'm not asking for absolute security, I'm asking for smarter security here at home where it counts.
 
More people, fine. What job do you assign to these people?

Patrol the borders, fine. Which border? Every port, coastal area, and land border? Just "dangerous" borders? Which is the most dangerous border, Canada or Mexico, where terrorism is concerned? How much of a hamper are you willing to put on legitimate trade (and thus teh economy) in order to stop terrorism?

Present a concrete plan on tightening security, please.
 
I think I already said I'm not an expert on this. I'm saying the experts should think these things out. Which ports, which boarders, where do we put our resources, how do we do this without impacing trade. However, I haven't seen that. Unless I'm missing something.
 
Might that be because keeping such information SECRET is the best way to ensure the terrorist aren't handed the *WEAK* point any defense system is sure to have on a silver platter?
 
Anyone find it kind of wierd that this happened less than 2 days after the announcement that The 2012 olympics will be held in London. I just find it strange.
 
Vengeful frenchies at work :p
 
LOL but they've concluded this was more about the G8 summit and Britian's role in the war in Iraq.
 
I was shocked when I first heard the news, then I just started balking at it. It was bad, but when was the last time America suffered a terrorist attack THAT SMALL? The FIRST WTC attack? And certainly London's seen worse in its history. But what do I see the SAME NIGHT of the attacks on EVERY SINGLE local news station? Talk of this leading to a "new string of terrorist attacks," which is COMPLETE bullshit. These stations took me from caring about this, to NOT caring about this. London just paid its dues to be in this war on terror. They're LUCKY that it was that small. Look at Madrid. Look at NYC. Look at OKC. It could have been a LOT worse. As is, it's BARELY equivacol to any ONE day in Iraq. And yet it gets tremendous coverage. I get WHY, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Whoever said we're likely to never catch Bin Laden and leave him around as some scary boogeyman...I COMPLETELY agree.

And whoever said that NEITHER party has done enough to protect the US, I COMPLETELY agree. And it goes back AT LEAST two decades. There were signs before 9/11. There were signs before the OKC bombing. I'm sure there were even signs before the original WTC bombing. But what was done afterwards? We got a scapegoat, we instituted new policies...and we assumed everything was ok. Then it just got worse. HOW many planes were hijacked before 9/11? And yet...look what happened. Next attack...I'm leading towards nuke. Target? NYC...of course. It's like a big slap in the face.
 
This is just directed at everyone, but don't compare the IRA to al-Qaeda. The IRA targeted almost exclusively military targets, and always sought to avoid killing civilians, whereas al-Qaeda cowards target civilians.

As for terrorism, it can only be defeated by destroying the reason for fighting. They cannot be defeated through military means - killing one makes ten more flock to their banner.

Whoever said we're likely to never catch Bin Laden and leave him around as some scary boogeyman...I COMPLETELY agree.
Click to expand...

As do I. This is worse than 1984. In that there were three super-powers fighting, here there is only one fighting an enemy who poses no significant threat (as in, they cannot conquer/destroy our whole country) but cannot be defeated (at least not the way it is being approached). How perfect this is for the masters.
 
You can't defeat an ideology, not for good.

And you most certainly can't defeat a mean to an end. The only way to end terrorism for good is to exterminate all of humanity.
 
And this is why we'll never win. Freedom is not on the march, terror is and it'll march to the end of time.
 
Damian Silverblade said:
You can't defeat an ideology, not for good.

And you most certainly can't defeat a mean to an end. The only way to end terrorism for good is to exterminate all of humanity.
Click to expand...

Or change the definition. Technically most countries were built on acts of terrorism. But the definition's changed so as to secure the power of those in power.

I do believe the phrase is: "One man's terrorist is another man's saviour."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom