bomb alerts and stuff

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1366 of them)
I suppose if it happened in Spain again then that would be 'proof' perhaps, but then there's that 'too late now' aspect.

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 08:43 (twenty years ago)

I suspect a stronger case can be made for the 'why it was inevitable regardless of Iraq' argument though.

I can't say the likes of M3lan1e Phi11ips have convinced me either.

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 08:44 (twenty years ago)

I think I would add the e to avoid confusion with the verb 'to spong'.

(x-post)

Mädchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 08:46 (twenty years ago)

the spanish bombers were dropped in from north africa, which might make a difference. and they did have more explosives to continue the campaign. there were radical islamists ready to kill before now--richard reid, for example. iraq mayhave swung the issue, but that leaves a massive logical hole. as norman geras said in the guardian, surely any of the million 15 feb marchers are potential bombers if this is somehow the deciding issue. why would iraq make someone born in eritrea and raised in britain want to kill a load of civilians?

N_RQ, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 08:49 (twenty years ago)

I've never seen Tony Blair so hysterical or self-righteous as he was at his press conference yesterday. "There is no justification for suicide bombing. That goes for Britain, and, let's get this one out of the way, that goes for Israel too." I half expected him to say "In fact, there's no justification for bombing of any kind." But no, silly me, why would he say that?

Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 08:55 (twenty years ago)

Once you're granted asylum, don't you become an asylum getter rather than a seeker? Or is it once a seeker, always a seeker?

Sir Ian Blair was quite convincing on C4 news last night. Maybe I am easily swayed though.

PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 08:55 (twenty years ago)

i've been thinking about that ian blair interview, and what annoyed me was his 'leaking': he made it clear he knew more than he was letting on. it's a way of reassuring us, i suppose.

momus otm re. tony blair.

N_RQ, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 08:58 (twenty years ago)

Steve - I used the word 'solely'. I'm not denying that Iraq has played a part in this, I'm just arguing against the knee-jerk over-simplistic way that the anonymous poster last night was basically saying 'this is all the fault of Tony Blair for invading Iraq - pull out now to stop the bombing'.

But this has been coming for a long time. The Iraq war might have helped it along, but it's not the root cause. The September 11 attacks pre-dated the Iraq war by a long way. Richard Reid would have been the first British suicide bomber back in 2001 (and killed more people on that aeroplane than died in London) if other passengers hadn't managed to stop him.

This didn't start with Iraq, and it's not about Iraq, but Iraq has stirred things up further.

I just didn't like the opportunistic way the SWP / Stop the War people started trying to used the bombings to back their political position. Just because someone's against the war in Iraq, it doesn't mean that the government is to blame for the bombings or that they should pull out because of the bombings. When anti-abortionist Christian fundamentalists in America shoot doctors dead, it doesn't mean that the government is to blame or that the law should be changed.

Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 08:58 (twenty years ago)

Is spong one of those magical Scottish 'words'?

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 09:05 (twenty years ago)

the stop the war honcho has a column in the grauniad today saying britain should pull out of iraq. it is an 'illegal' occupation. god knows what legal status pertains to whoever fills the power vacuum. iraq was a disaster -- maybe it didn't have to be, but the war, more importantly the occupation, was fucked-up. it has probably provided recruits for the footsoldiers in this war -- the actual bombers. but i'd think the terror networks, the camps in afghanistan and pakistan -- these existed before iraq.

N_RQ, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 09:12 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, same here. It is sponging, right? Or have tabloids established such a hold over the word that they can spell it how they like?

See Hinge Verb Query

Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 09:12 (twenty years ago)

re 'pulling out of Iraq', I grudgingly share the view that you have to clean up your mess before you can leave the premises, ESPECIALLY if you gatecrashed.

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 09:53 (twenty years ago)

But most parties don't work that way, do they? Gatecrashers who make a mess are not generally encouraged to change their spots and help with the clean-up, are they? Usually the hosts just get rid of the gatecrashers and tidy up themselves, fearing more breakages and more irresponsibility. In fact, gatecrashers (people who, for instance, smash your display cabinet or your national museum) are, in themselves, the mess.

Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 10:18 (twenty years ago)

I think the Stop the War people using this to further their cause are just about on a par with the BNP using that photo of the bombed bus on their electioneering pamphlet.

PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 10:39 (twenty years ago)

Once you're granted asylum, don't you become an asylum getter rather than a seeker? Or is it once a seeker, always a seeker?

If by that you mean a refugee, yes. But the Government last week issued a statement that from August 30 people given refugee status will no longer qualify automatically for indefinite leave to remain but instead will be given leave to remain for five years.

In effect: we're going to be detaining and deporting a lot more people straight back to war zones. Good thing all the troubles in places like the Balkans and Zimbawe were sorted out in less than five years, eh Tony?

James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:09 (twenty years ago)

"the anonymous poster last night was basically saying 'this is all the fault of Tony Blair for invading Iraq - pull out now to stop the bombing'"

Erm sorry that was a quote from Stop the War I wasn't saying it. I actually agree that the whole thing is far more complex than that the reductive War on Iraq = Suicide Bombers causality and have been interested in these reactions to StW's ostensible justification. In my mind the NIMBYist "Stop the War to stop the terror in London" is almost as reprehensibly obfuscatory as Blair's justifications.

anonforareason, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:23 (twenty years ago)

I think the Stop the War people using this to further their cause are just about on a par with the BNP using that photo of the bombed bus on their electioneering pamphlet.

Yeah, let's keep politics out of politics.

Venga (Venga), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:23 (twenty years ago)

i love the stop the war people's logic. hands up who *supports* the shooting of innocent civilians.

N_RQ, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:27 (twenty years ago)

I've only read the last 50 posts, so my apologies if this was talked about upthread ...

NYTimes today reports that there is evidence that the four bombers may not have known it was a suicide mission:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/27/international/europe/27suicide.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th
"
LONDON, July 26 - Within hours of the July 7 attacks here, many British police and intelligence officials assumed that the four bombers had intended to die with their bombs.

But in recent days, some police officials are increasingly considering the possibility that the men did not plan to commit suicide and were duped into dying.

Investigators raising doubts about the suicide assumption have cited evidence to support this theory. Each of the four men who died in the July 7 attacks purchased round-trip railway tickets from Luton to London. Germaine Lindsay's rented car left in Luton had a seven-day parking sticker on the dashboard.

A large quantity of explosives were stored in the trunk of that car, perhaps for another attack. Another bomber had just spent a large sum to repair his car. The men carried driver's licenses and other ID cards with them to their deaths, unusual for suicide bombers.

In addition, none left behind a note, videotape or Internet trail as suicide bombers have done in the past. And the bombers' families were baffled by what seemed to be their decisions to kill themselves.

While some of these clues could be seen as the work of men intent on covering their trail, some investigators increasingly believe that the men may have been conned into carrying the bombs onto the trains and leaving them, thinking they were going to explode minutes later.

Draw Tipsy to see if you give a shit about art (Dave225), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:28 (twenty years ago)

Unlike the way the govt are using the bombs to further their cause. Fuck that shit.

Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:29 (twenty years ago)

xpost

It seems pretty unlikely that they didn't know they were suicide bombers. There were no timers, either in the first attacks or the second wave of attacks. There was no reason for them not to carry their ID, as they probably wanted to be known after they died. As for the return tickets, and seven day hire of the car, in Britain a return train ticket costs virtually the same as a single so nobody buys a single. Also they were hardly going to say "Just single tickets for us please, we're going to blow ourselves up in London".

Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:37 (twenty years ago)

if there were no timers, it's a fair bet they meant to do it -- i hadn't known there weren't. without timers how could they have been tricked into detonating the bombs?

N_RQ, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:40 (twenty years ago)

There were no timers, either in the first attacks or the second wave of attacks

I definitely read that the bus bomb on the 21st was left behind by somebody who got off the bus before it exploded, leaving it behind on the back seat of the top deck.

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:41 (twenty years ago)

on indymedia?

Bush To London Bombers: 'Bring It On'
WASHINGTON, DC—President Bush officially responded to the latest round of London transit bombings Monday, challenging terrorists to "do their worst." Said Bush, in a televised statement from the Oval Office: "The proud and resilient people of London can take anything the forces of evil and cowardice can throw at them. They will never live in fear of you. Bring it on." Prime Minister Tony Blair thanked Bush for his comments, inviting him to visit London and ride the Underground in a show of solidarity.

N_RQ, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:42 (twenty years ago)

some investigators increasingly believe that the men may have been conned into carrying the bombs onto the trains and leaving them, thinking they were going to explode minutes later.

Which doesn't explain why the fourth guy carried his around for another hour before exploding it on the No30.

Venga (Venga), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:42 (twenty years ago)

"I suppose if it happened in Spain again then that would be 'proof' perhaps"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3981061.stm

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/03/1080941722786.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true

slb1, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:42 (twenty years ago)

I definitely read that the bus bomb on the 21st was left behind by somebody who got off the bus before it exploded, leaving it behind on the back seat of the top deck.

Yeah, you're right, I forgot that.

Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:44 (twenty years ago)

Bush To London Bombers: 'Bring It On'

Er, that's from The Onion.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:44 (twenty years ago)

Return tickets, parking ticket etc - you've gotta have escape options if things go "wrong".

NickB (NickB), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:47 (twenty years ago)

We have had to wait quite a long time for a silly conspiracy theory, but it's very silly. "One of the bombers still had half a packet of Weetabix in this cupboard. Receipts show it was bought only three days before the blasts."

What does keep the politics out of politics mean? Don't answer that.

PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:56 (twenty years ago)

Hang on, this theory was reported a couple of days after the bombings, wasn't it?

Mädchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:58 (twenty years ago)

NYTimes today reports that there is evidence that the four bombers may not have known it was a suicide mission:

where has the NY times been? that theory was the daily mirror splash two weeks ago on saturday; it had been doing the rounds in this office for two days before that. jesus christ.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:00 (twenty years ago)

This return ticket/were they duped? thing has been being bandied around for at least a fortnight - I read it in the Independent On Sunday the week before last. At the time I said "That was my theory!" but I wasn't very serious and I agree with PJ Miller's Weetabix comparison.

x-post

Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:01 (twenty years ago)

hands up who *supports* the shooting of innocent civilians.

So you've not seen any media commentators or people on the internet saying "tragic mistake, but we musn't blame the police or try to prevent them doing it again, and besides he really shouldn't have ran...", then?

Flyboy (Flyboy), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:04 (twenty years ago)

TS: shooting of vs bombing of...

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:05 (twenty years ago)

That's hardly the same as encouraging the police to go out and shoot random people in the street. (xpost)

Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:06 (twenty years ago)

course i have seen commentators say that, flyboy, but no-one has supported the shooting of innocent civilians. i'm fairly sure the police don't want to do this again.

"However horrific the bombings in London on 7th July and however important it is to secure the safety of the public, there can be no excuse for the police adopting a shoot to kill policy which guns down innocent people in cold blood."

i mean are they fucking kidding? 'in cold blood'?

N_RQ, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:08 (twenty years ago)

Well, I hadn't heard it before. Otherwise I would have been bandying about my Weetabix comparison for two weeks.

Read over someone's shoulders that one of the failed bombers thought he was going to get 80 virgins in paradise. Yeah, right, who does he think he is, fucking Magnum?

PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:08 (twenty years ago)

Yeah isn't it usually 72 virgins? Why's he so special he's getting 8 more?

Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:36 (twenty years ago)

I overheard the newsdesk next to me getting excited about this upping of the virgin quotient earlier.

Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:38 (twenty years ago)

So it all boils down to jealousy that some guys are getting 80 virgins in this life. I just KNEW it was a sexual inadequacy issue.

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:48 (twenty years ago)

guy caught in brum (using TASER -- wdn't this have worked as well in stockwell) might well be the warren st bomber.

N_RQ, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:49 (twenty years ago)

Oh, I didn't know there was a standard number of virgins. It's like four and twenty blackbirds.

PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:51 (twenty years ago)

it's a whole lotta awkward fumbling either way!

N_RQ, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:54 (twenty years ago)

I like the idea that the number is just down to their own lack of ambition in this regard i.e. "think of a really big number!" "ooooooohh....80!"

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:55 (twenty years ago)

"I've got 104 friends"

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:55 (twenty years ago)

It's true. Or rather it might be true:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4720027.stm

Apparently, if it is him and he cooperates with the police, he'll get a "discount" on his virgins.

PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:07 (twenty years ago)

Richard Branson has a beard. COINCIDENCE?? I THINK NOT.

Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:08 (twenty years ago)

I don't know if this was mentioned before but didn't anyone find it a bit odd that one of the four would-be-bombers photographed is wearing a top with 'New York' on it?

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:09 (twenty years ago)

this rucksack thing is getting out of hand. glad i have a man-bag.

no, sociah, you are the first person ever to note the ironing there!

N_RQ, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:11 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.