London Explosions

by Kieran Healy on July 7, 2005

There are reports of a series of explosions on the London Underground. It’s not clear what’s happening. Another Madrid? Or something else?

Update: The eyewitness reports on the BBC make it clear that it’s a co-ordinated bombing of the tube and some buses. I hope they catch the bastards responsible.

Update 2: Reports are all over Australian TV now, and obviously this will be a major story across the media so I won’t make any more updates here. But I will keep comments open, of course. At this point the hope is for as few fatalities as possible.

{ 79 comments }

1

Posadist 07.07.05 at 5:19 am

3 buses blown up too. It’s certainly a terrorist attack, not an accident.

2

Ray 07.07.05 at 5:19 am

Almost certainly terrorist, there has been at least one explosion on a bus as well as the Tube, so it can’t have been a power surge.

3

Phil 07.07.05 at 5:26 am

I had to take the bus this morning because the undeground was not running. But the bus too stopped at Angel so I had to walk from there. As I was going past Russell Sq I saw a big crowd in the distance but I didn’t want to go closer. Saw many people crying…

4

Marc Mulholland 07.07.05 at 5:27 am

Train stations have been avacuated in Brighton & Swindon.

5

Maria 07.07.05 at 5:33 am

The mobile phone network seems to be overwhelmed – no one I’ve tried to call who works in city centre has any service.

6

Ray 07.07.05 at 5:40 am

This image from the BBC
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41276000/gif/_41276695_london_tube_map416.gif
shows where the bombings were, if you know where your people live and work…

7

Chris Bertram 07.07.05 at 5:45 am

The tv news here is still very confused, but this looks like another Madrid. Let us hope that the casualties are few.

8

mykej 07.07.05 at 5:53 am

Maria, BBC reports that mobile phone service has been turned off for some sections of London out of fear that bombs were triggered with mobiles.

My thoughts are with all there.

9

Jonathan 07.07.05 at 5:58 am

Just saw CNN seriously speculating this could have been french attacks (because of the olympics), meanwhile terrorist alert has gone up in other major european cities, market are down….seems terrorism still works.

10

Marc Mulholland 07.07.05 at 6:16 am

ITN reports a Government source citing twenty dead.

11

Maria 07.07.05 at 6:28 am

Thanks Mykej. I just heard also that vodafone is reserving half their network for emergency services.

12

stostosto 07.07.05 at 6:33 am

>Just saw CNN seriously speculating this could have been french attacks (because of the olympics)

You’re kidding, right?

13

bi 07.07.05 at 6:40 am

The. Terrorists. Were. Late.

14

Daniel 07.07.05 at 7:12 am

Well that was fucking horrible. One of the smaller bombs went off, late, in the Tube station underneath my office. Having walked home in the pissing rain I can confirm that nobody is allowed anywhere near King’s Cross station and Russell Square looks pretty bad.

15

gnat 07.07.05 at 7:15 am

Terrible.

Along with the shock and sadness, I feel a sort of shame that, like most London commuters, I’d started to roll my eyes at the platform PA announcements which begin “At this time of heightened security…”

When Adam Curtis’ “The Power Of Nightmares” was broadcast I thought it was a ridiculous cleverer-than-thou confection, just like his “Century Of The Self” and hoped that no one who saw it would ever ignore a security warning on the basis that such threats are a powers-that-be conspiracy myth. Here’s still hoping.

16

gnat 07.07.05 at 7:20 am

I’m sorry, I’ve just read my post back and it makes hardly any sense. I have no clue if any warning was given, or if anyone ignoring it would have made any difference. Monsters produce the sleep of reason, I suppose. Thoughts are now more properly with the victims and their loved ones.

17

yabonn 07.07.05 at 7:23 am

So they are one day late.

Time to move the bombs from Paris to London? One team in each city? Mere coincidence?

18

Tom Runnacles 07.07.05 at 7:30 am

Canary Wharf – for non-Brits, the main financial district outside the old City itself – is now completely cut off. Many banks are telling their employees not the leave their buildings. This is pretty scary.

19

Jake 07.07.05 at 7:31 am

It seems more likely it’s related to the G-8 conference, doesn’t it?

I’ve always loved London. May the bastards who did this rot in hell.

20

Ray 07.07.05 at 7:32 am

I think the timing has more to do with the G8 meeting than the Olympics. Why a Paris bomb at all? The three major western powers in favour of the invasion were US, UK, and Spain, and now all three have been hit.

21

Jonathan 07.07.05 at 7:38 am

don’t forget the netherlands…

22

Daniel 07.07.05 at 7:41 am

Look, it’s simply forward planning. Since AQ will presumably want to be bombing the Olympics when they happen, they might as well time the attack on London so as to not jeopardise the chances of the Olympics being there.

By the way, ignoring official warnings is almost *always* the best thing to do in a crisis; officials have this horrible habit of telling you to stay where you are.

23

Backword Dave 07.07.05 at 8:15 am

Speaking of Canary Wharf, Europhobia reports of marines shooting a suspected suicide bomber dead. (Seems a bit unlikely, weren’t all the attacks synchronised? But we’ll see.)

24

Ray 07.07.05 at 8:38 am

I don’t think it was marines, but I have heard of a suspected bomber being shot in/near Canary Wharf. But nothing in the media, a couple of hours after I heard it, so probably not true.

25

goesh 07.07.05 at 8:42 am

This is terrible – I hope few have died.

26

Steve LaBonne 07.07.05 at 9:20 am

I’m feeling sick. My heart goes out to the wounded, their families, but especially to the families of those killed.

27

Keith M Ellis 07.07.05 at 9:29 am

I find the earlier speculation about a connection to the Olympics to be, well, absurd. I can’t understand how anyone could take that idea seriously. Putting aside how extremely unlikely that terrorists would plan and prepare for this–and unlikely outcome on the Olympics decision–enough in advance that they could execute it within 24 hours of the decision, there’s the general problem of the craziness of the idea that anyone would plan and carry out a fairly large terrorist operation because of a decision to place an Olympics in London!

28

gnat 07.07.05 at 9:32 am

…and NOT carry out the attack if London didn’t get the Olympics? I agree, it’s nuts.

29

Tommy 07.07.05 at 9:33 am

“Secret Organization – al-Qaida in Europe” has posted a claim of responsibility

This is just my opinion but I think this is a bait attack, bait enough to keep UK from bringing troops back home so that they can wear away at them little bit by little bit.

This could back fire if UK got serious now and sent enought troops ( equal to US ) to end this thing faster. But they won’t send more becuase we are trying to let the New Iraqi gov’t call the shoots.

It is a sign a great condifedence on their part.

30

Teddy 07.07.05 at 9:37 am

Kieran: “I hope they catch the bastards responsible.”
Jake: “May the bastards who did this rot in hell.”

My question: If the “bastards” are caught, how should they be treated? Would it be OK to put them under some stress (not torture!) to make them reveal the names of those who planned this and who may be organizing similar attacks in the near future? Or should the treatment include only polite interrogation, Koran, a carpet, and three meals a day?

31

yabonn 07.07.05 at 10:00 am

What really alarmed me is precisely that : that they’d be able to carry so easily their bombs wherever they want within 24h.

I agree that the G8 is a better client, but i don’t think either it’s silly to think the terrorist would like the added exposure of the Olympics.

32

Ray 07.07.05 at 10:07 am

If Al Qaeda could switch a bunch of co-ordinated attacks from one city to another at less than 24 hours notice, they’d also be capable of carrying such attacks much more often than they do. London is a much more obvious target, even without the G8. The olympics has added approximately nothing to the impact of the bombings.

33

MFB 07.07.05 at 10:13 am

Health and strength to you good Londoners.

By the way, I suspect the timing relates to the G8 only because the huge security cordon at Gleneagles left London security depleted. I doubt that whoever did this really cares whether the G8ers waffle on or don’t. My best guess is that the bombing’s something to do with Iraq.

34

jet 07.07.05 at 10:29 am

I know the IRA hardly seems likely, but has there been any recent disturbances in Ireland (besides the bank robbery)?

35

Matt McGrattan 07.07.05 at 10:30 am

mfb:

That’s unlikely – the percentage of Metropolitan Police at Gleneagles was quite low.

There are somewhere in the region of 30,000 police in the Metropolitan force.

36

Marc Mulholland 07.07.05 at 10:33 am

The IRA, ‘Real’ or otherwise, are highly unlikely candidates. Not their M.O at all.

37

P ONeill 07.07.05 at 10:48 am

While it’s almost certainly not Real/Continuity IRA, it’s impossible not to see echoes of their past activities. Which of course just reflects that terrorists targeting the same place tend to come up with the same ideas. But even the apparent indications that the Bloomsbury bus bomb was accidental/premature mirrors an IRA botch in 1996. Indeed 1996 in general reads like a less fatal and more disparate version of what is happening today.

38

david a 07.07.05 at 10:49 am

Terrible news, with a horrible familiarity to it.

I would just like to defend Adam Curtis’s ‘Power of Nightmares’ thesis. He is not and has never argued that Islamic Terrorism is a myth: on the contrary, his central tenet is that the US neo-cons and the Islamic Fundemantalists need each other – they are each other’s bete noire.

This awful, needless loss of life that so angers me is surely an example of this. The Islamicists continue to rile the West who continue to fight the ‘War on Terror’ and we are locked into a cycle without end.

Curtis’s other point, that ‘Al-Qaeda’ is partially a Western creation, is also perfectly valid IMHO. The idea that Bin Laden sits in his cave orchestrating violence with a wave of his hand might appeal to a neo-con audience who want a cartoon baddie with a big beard and a big brain, but there’s plenty of evidence to suggest it doesn’t in any way tally with reality.

What has happened today in London will, I suspect, be the work of some UK based fundamentalists who weren’t even in contact with Bin Laden – hence UK’s intelligence’s failure to pick up any traffic on thi – because there wasn’t any.

What we on the left have to work out is how to offer something tangible and attractive to voters and citizens other than a diet of fear and recriminations. Today’s bombs are, of course, not anyone’s fault other than the cowards who planeted them. But each act of violence moves us further away from our aim, and gives fuel to both the neo-cons (they were right all along about the terror threat) and the Islamic Fundamentalists (their attacks are ‘working’).

39

abb1 07.07.05 at 11:14 am

By the way, I suspect the timing relates to the G8 only because the huge security cordon at Gleneagles left London security depleted.

Exactly. But for some reason my comment suggesting this connection was deleted this morning.

40

Matt McGrattan 07.07.05 at 11:28 am

For those speculating re: the weakness in security caused by the transfer of some Met officers to Gleneagles, this was specifically raised as a question at the press conference a couple of hours ago.

The Met spokesman specifically highlighted the relatively low percentage, as a total of the Met force, that was transferred to Gleneagles.

I’d be surprised if security weaknesses are the specific reason for the attack — proximity to the G8 conference and the attendant publicity to be gained seem much more likely.

Although I suppose it’s silly to speculate until we know more.

41

abb1 07.07.05 at 11:42 am

Why, not the specific reason for the attack, of course, but for the timing. Reason for the attack is, of course, the ongoing clash of civilizations.

42

Marc Mulholland 07.07.05 at 11:50 am

Hi P O’Neill,

“Which of course just reflects that terrorists targeting the same place tend to come up with the same ideas.”

Unless you mean, the IRA bombed London too, I don’t really see how this analysis works. But that’s a discussion for another day perhaps.

43

gnat 07.07.05 at 12:10 pm

It’s hard to be even halfway rational about this pointless tragedy just hours after the event, but while the gut reels, the mind ticks on to the next stage.

It will be interesting to see how public opinion reacts here, particularly in comparison with Spain. Obviously the circumstances and political context of the Madrid bombings were different, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the British public hardened their support for the war in Iraq even if only on the basis that if you’re annoying people who’d do such a thing, you must be doing something right. It’s no rational basis for foreign policy, but we are nothing if not Ornery.

44

Ray 07.07.05 at 12:23 pm

I don’t think the Madrid bombing dramatically changed Spanish opinion of the war in Iraq. It changed Spanish opinion of the PP, but that was because the PP spent the next couple of days strenuously denying the bombing could have had anything to do with Iraq, and insisting that ETA were the only suspects.

45

J Thomas 07.07.05 at 12:56 pm

Tommy wrote, “This is just my opinion but I think this is a bait attack, bait enough to keep UK from bringing troops back home so that they can wear away at them little bit by little bit.”

That sounds plausible to me. It isn’t unlikely that the purpose of the attack was to make sure the british troops stay in iraq.

Then there’s the question which of the entities that want british troops in iraq did it.

46

Michael H. 07.07.05 at 1:00 pm

The London bombings are terrible. But strangely, no one seems to be asking, “Where is bin Laden” and “Why don’t we go after him and his al-Queda network.”

CIA director Porter Goss recently remarked:“I have an excellent idea of where he is. What’s the next question?” But he said he could not pursue him because of the problem with “dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you’re dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play.”

First question: Why can’t the CIA director come out and say that bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan? Second question: Why aren’t we motivating Pakistan to try to find bin Laden. Third question: If we are really serious about finding bin Laden, do we really think a measly $25 million bounty is going to do any good?

47

jet 07.07.05 at 1:02 pm

Only two entities want the UK to remain in Iraq, the US government and the Iraqi government. What you are implying is sick and demented.

48

yabonn 07.07.05 at 1:52 pm

London is a much more obvious target, even without the G8. The olympics has added approximately nothing to the impact of the bombings.

With a cooler head, my supposition of switching teams was a little silly -thankfully. But i disagree with you on that last point : the terrorists are, imho, looking for media coverage. Anything goes that raises “media awareness”, or that can be spinned as a symbol.

49

Walt Pohl 07.07.05 at 2:27 pm

Jet: J Thomas pretty obviously thinks that there are terrorist organizations who think it’s in their interest to keep foreign troops in Iraq. You probably owe him an apology.

50

Shieva 07.07.05 at 7:40 pm

Just echoing the already expressed sentiment (for some reason I feel the need to say it myself): Londoners will be in my thoughts and prayers – I wish the very best for them as they recover from this tragic event.

51

McDuff 07.07.05 at 8:06 pm

Dear Teddy,

My question: If the “bastards” are caught, how should they be treated? Would it be OK to put them under some stress (not torture!) to make them reveal the names of those who planned this and who may be organizing similar attacks in the near future? Or should the treatment include only polite interrogation, Koran, a carpet, and three meals a day?

“The Bastards” should be treated just like any other criminal suspect in the UK until they are tried and found guilty, and then just like any other convicted murderer or rapist afterwards. No better, no worse.

I’m not going to elevate them to a position they so obviously crave by making them “special.” They are common murderers, and we’ve dealt with their kind before.

Yrs &c.

52

Teddy 07.07.05 at 9:24 pm

mcduff says: I’m not going to elevate [the bastards] to a position they so obviously crave by making them “special.” They are common murderers, and we’ve dealt with their kind before.

I actually think they are special. Rather than being “common murderers”, they are members of an organization of murderers whose goal is to kill as many innocent people as possible. To treat them as common criminals would result in significantly decreasing the probability of arresting their fellow-murderers and precluding future attacks. I hope the authorities will have more common sense than many intellectuals (“maniacs of human rights”) to realize this, and that they will do what is within their power to minimize the danger of similar atrocities being repeated soon.

53

Limboman 07.07.05 at 11:26 pm

The funny thing is that the “bastards” who blew the bus and metro were the first to be blown to smithereness. They are suicide bombers WHAT can you do to them?

54

abb1 07.08.05 at 2:14 am

Clearly there are better ways to minimize the danger of similar atrocities being repeated. You spit against the wind, it’s all over your face – a good way to minimize the danger of similar outcome would be to stop spitting against the wind.

55

dave heasman 07.08.05 at 2:31 am

Teddy asserts : – “To treat them as common criminals would result in significantly decreasing the probability of arresting their fellow-murderers and precluding future attacks”

but there’s no real evidence of this. I think they should be treated like a criminal gang – try to break off the weak links & get them to grass up the rest of the organisation by treating them humanely. It’s what the US does with the mafia, it’s what the UK did/does with the IRA and it works.

There’s no reason to imagine that the terrorists aren’t as “brave” as the Londoners. Oppression concentrates resistance.

56

Fergal 07.08.05 at 8:52 am

Oppression concentrates resistance.

Whose “oppression”, Dave?

57

Ray 07.08.05 at 8:57 am

The oppression of the person being tortured, as teddy is suggesting above.

58

dave heasman 07.08.05 at 9:25 am

“Whose “oppression”, Dave?”

Sorry to be arcane; I was using it in a quasi-technical sense. Perhaps “compression” would have been better.
Actually I was trying to use it in two senses at once. Ray has it, too.

59

Teddy 07.08.05 at 11:28 am

I explicitly said that I did not advocate torture, and put even the exclamation mark to stress this, but apparently in vain. Anyway, it is interesting to see that Dave recommends “humane treatment” as the best way to fight those murderous fanatics. Boy, was Karl Rove right when he said that some people don’t understand the nature of the terrorist threat today!

60

J Thomas 07.08.05 at 11:54 am

“Only two entities want the UK to remain in Iraq, the US government and the Iraqi government. What you are implying is sick and demented.”

How do you know that?

Why wouldn’t al qaeda want the UK to stay in iraq? If they think the UK staying in iraq is bad for the UK and bad for (what they’d think of as) the iraqi puppet government, why not?

While the british are pinned down in iraq they aren’t doing mischief elsewhere. Same as for the USA. And if the british pulled out it might get us to pull out too early.

Then there’s iran. Same story, we say we’re their enemies so the more we weaken ourselves in iraq the better off they are.

And russia. We are taking on pieces of the old USSR as client states, places that were russian client states after the USSR broke up. That’s got to rankle. The more we get worn down in iraq the slower we’ll have to go on that. And keeping britain in there lets us stay longer and get worn down more.

Etc.

There are lots of entities that want the british to stay in iraq besides the US government, the iraqi government, and the israeli government. Those may be the most obvious candidates but they certainly aren’t the only ones.

61

abb1 07.08.05 at 1:05 pm

As far as it being a ‘bait attack’, I just can’t imagine anyone who thought that the Iraq war was a bad idea changing their mind because of this attack. Just can’t. But of course I didn’t expect Bush to get more than 5% of the vote in 2004, so…

62

Ray 07.08.05 at 1:55 pm

teddy – “I explicitly said that I did not advocate torture”, yeah you just advocated putting “them under some stress”, which is what torture is called by people who don’t want to admit to torture. Do you think changing the words fools anyone?

63

J Thomas 07.08.05 at 2:21 pm

Abb1, it might affect people who were wavering.

“It was the right thing to do but it just isn’t working. We need some alternative.”

“No, I changed my mind. There’s no possible alternative to victory.”

64

abb1 07.08.05 at 2:40 pm

J Thomas, I thought one of the main reasons the Bushies won the elections was that there’s been no significant terrorist attack in the US after 9/11, so empirically it looked (and, perhaps, still does look in the US) like whatever they’re doing is working. I just can’t imagine why a couple of blown up busses would indicate that occupation of Iraq is a success and a right thing to do. I’d imagine this event should cause the pro-war crowd to move into their ‘nuke Mecca’ mode and the rest into a higher degree of anti-war/anti-occupation. But, like I said, I’ve been wrong before.

65

J Thomas 07.08.05 at 3:43 pm

Abb1, you could easily be right. However, the immediate question was not what we (and the british) will do in response to this stunt. The question was what did we think the perpetrators of the stunt thought we (and the british) would do.

I think it’s more likely they’d think we’d be resolved to stay in iraq than that they’d think we’d be more likely to pull out — independent of how we actually respond. But it’s anybody’s guess how they predict.

66

dave heasman 07.08.05 at 6:21 pm

Teddy gets personal :-
” Anyway, it is interesting to see that Dave recommends “humane treatment” as the best way to fight those murderous fanatics. “

The opposite tack, Putin’s approach to Chechnya, has a much greater chance of success, after ten years of continuous triumph?

Besides, you deliberately (for you seem intelligent) distorted what I said. It’s a gang. Or perhaps a cult. Or both. To break up a gang you go for the weak links. You turn them by being human. Then, when they realise that they can have a life outside the cult, they’ll tell you stuff. There’s a long history of this working.

“Boy, was Karl Rove right ” Did I say you seemed intelligent? Oh well.

Karl Rove is interestede in gestures and theatre. His little cult has confessed to not being interested in results. We normal vulnerable people have to be.

67

Teddy 07.08.05 at 9:36 pm

Ray, there are many ways of putting people under stress that do no not qualify as torture by anyone’s measure. I suggest that you read John Yoo’s explanation on this in his discussion with Jeremy Waldron (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/law/acs/), and some of the recent articles by Heather Macdonald in the City Journal.

Dave suggests that I am stupid just because I agreed with Karl Rove on something. Well, if terrorists who massacred people in London deserve “humane treatment”, I thought (naively) that Karl Rove and I were then also entitled to minimal politeness.

Interestingly, Dave says that the London murderers belong to a “cult”, and he also refers to Karl Rove as a member of a “cult”. It speaks volumes that the same word is used in these two cases.

68

Joseph Germain 07.09.05 at 1:41 am

come on guys, enough of the intellectual crap! do they deserve humane treatment? of course…lets feed the bastards bacon sandwiches!!

London is bigger than this, we took on the blitz & beat the German Elite, the IRA (in 200 years) did not stop us & now these cowards are not going to phase us! If they think they are tough lets issue a challenge…come on guys, one on one – lets see how tough you really are!!!! The truth is, they are very tough when thay are talking amongst themselves…lets see how they fair when they get into a street environment! The gauntlet is down, you want a fight…bring it on!!!

69

Uncle Kvetch 07.09.05 at 7:11 am

I suggest that you read John Yoo’s explanation on this in his discussion with Jeremy Waldron (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/law/acs/)

I’ve read more than enough John Yoo as it is, thanks very much:

‘As Yoo saw it, Congress doesn’t have the power to “tie the President’s hands in regard to torture as an interrogation technique.” He continued, “It’s the core of the Commander-in-Chief function. They can’t prevent the President from ordering torture.”‘

Well, if terrorists who massacred people in London deserve “humane treatment”, I thought (naively) that Karl Rove and I were then also entitled to minimal politeness.

To paraphrase our minimally polite Vice President, Karl Rove can go fuck himself.

70

dave heasman 07.09.05 at 12:08 pm

Dave says that the London murderers belong to a “cult”, and he also refers to Karl Rove as a member of a “cult”.

No, I assign to Rove the ownership of a cult.
He is, if you like, the Big Ron to GWB’s Little Tommy.
And once again, I wasn’t necessarily recommending “humane treatment” (though I will. Why not? Acting inhumanely diminishes the actor. I wouldn’t torture, so I decline to order others to.) to the assassins, but to their associates, to people half-in, half-out of the organisation. “Weak links” was my term. Surely even “teddy” wouldn’t assign a bombing mission to a weak link?

On another note, you’ve had more than minimal politeness. You’ve sought to twist what I said, and that’s dishonourable. What I think of you is considerably worse than what I’ve said.

Karl Rove can look after himself. Let’s hope he does so, from a cell, soon.

71

Hugh Nicklin 07.09.05 at 1:17 pm

Funny that in all this no-one has mentioned Palestine. The English National History curriculum being what it has been since 1990, that is increasingly unsurprising. One does not have to take sides over Palestine to recognise that it is an influence on the Muslims who use terrorism.

72

Red 07.09.05 at 5:46 pm

These attacks are a convenient way to justify the unpopular id card scheme?

73

Teddy 07.09.05 at 9:03 pm

Amazing. In the thread on London bombings in which Islamic terrorists killed more than 50 innocent people we hear that Karl Rove should go to jail (and that he should fuck himself). I especially like the contrast between this hate for the current American administration and the advocation of “humane treatment” for mass murderers.

74

J Thomas 07.10.05 at 1:24 am

Teddy, it isn’t established yet who did the london bombings. You assume they’re islamic.

But we know enough about Rove to get some estimate whether he belongs in jail.

The difference is that Rove is a public figure, while the terrorists are as anonymous as they can manage.

75

abb1 07.10.05 at 5:07 am

I especially like the contrast between this hate for the current American administration and the advocation of “humane treatment” for mass murderers.

I suspect that most of the world population view the current American administration as mass murderers, war criminals and perpetrators of crimes against humanity. And for a good reason.

76

engels 07.11.05 at 7:50 am

I especially like the contrast between this hate for the current American administration and the advocation of “humane treatment” for mass murderers.

No contrast here, Teddy. Neither deserve “politeness” and neither deserve to be tortured. To add to a point made above: Osama bin Laden and Karl Rove can go fuck themselves.

77

Teddy 07.11.05 at 8:24 am

Hi, Engels! Please give my regards to Marx. And by the way, tell him to fuck himself.

78

cwild 07.11.05 at 10:01 am

i assume “Teddy” is American. and probably from the south – if not, at least from one of the scary “red” states…
i am American, and a New Yorker. i was there when the towers fell and the smell of smoke stayed in the air for months after… the bombing that just happened in London has brought me back to how i felt then. i am afraid of what this will mean for the future. i watched freedom of speech and opinion fall to its knees in this country, because if we didnt support our president then we were the enemy. i watched many liberals vote for Bush because of fear, because they were brainwashed into thinking he could protect us from more threats. i am ashamed of the pool of ignorance i wade in, and i am afraid that other countries might come to the same fate. and what would that mean for the world?

i am not convinced that this was AQ. in fact, i am starting to have a terrible fear that it could have been done by a group who wants the UK to “stay the course” in Iraq.

fear is the greatest tool of those who wish to control. what better way to create fear than a terroist attack?

79

engels 07.11.05 at 12:07 pm

Teddy – You are just swearing at me by proxy. You are a half-wit. You have just refuted any argument you ever had about politeness. Although it’s a few days since the bombings I still have better things to do than to argue with half-wits like you, and I imagine that goes for most people who have been in London over the last few days. So if you want to start a vacuous slanging match about Marxism, please choose another thread.

Comments on this entry are closed.