London Explosions

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.

Train stations have been avacuated in Brighton & Swindon.

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…

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.

ITN reports a Government source citing twenty dead.

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

You’re kidding, right?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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

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’).

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oppression concentrates resistance.

Whose “oppression”, Dave?

“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.

“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.

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?

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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

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.

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.

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?