- #1
Art
London is now the latest victim of what appears to be suicide bombers.
Very few facts available yet though it seems there were at least 6 separate blasts (3 on busses and 3 on tube trains) timed to coincide with the start of the G8 summit. There are fatalities but no indication at all yet of how many. Eyewitnesses say the busses were packed so it doesn't look good.physics4ever said:Any idea who the terrorists were or why the attacks happened?
There was a terrorist attack in India a couple of days ago
physics4ever said:Any idea who the terrorists were or why the attacks happened?
There was a terrorist attack in India a couple of days ago
Art said:What happened in India. I haven't heard of that attack over here.
GROUP CLAIMS ATTACKS
A terror group linked to al Qaeda has claimed it carried out a series of terror attacks on London that have left a number of people dead and hundreds injured.
Two London hospital have reported a total of 185 wounded after a series of blasts hit locations across the city on buses and Tube stations.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said there was evidence of explosives at at least one of the six sites.
Scotland Yard has denied reports they were warned of an attack by Israel minutes before the blasts.
Two people have been confirmed dead and at least 90 people injured in the explosion at Aldgate Station
It's not clear that it is suicide bombers. Possibly, it is the result of bombs planted, as in Madrid. This is irrelevant at the moment - the net effect is the same regardless - innocent people have been killed or injured.Art said:London is now the latest victim of what appears to be suicide bombers.
I wish I could agree with you. Unfortunately, their aims are to cause terror and death, and they have achieved it.alexandra said:It is obvious that whichever group is responsible is acting on the basis of a flawed analysis: how can such acts possibly achieve their aims?
El Hombre Invisible said:I wish I could agree with you. Unfortunately, their aims are to cause terror and death, and they have achieved it.
You're probably right, El Hombre - perhaps it's 'revenge' motivated. If their aim was to further the cause of justice and to bring about real change, it would have been ill-conceived. Again, though, this is an indication to me that they have not thought things through properly. Revenge is not something one should be aiming for - change is.El Hombre Invisible said:I wish I could agree with you. Unfortunately, their aims are to cause terror and death, and they have achieved it.
El Hombre Invisible said:I wish I could agree with you. Unfortunately, their aims are to cause terror and death, and they have achieved it.
Yes, q - this is exactly what I meant. Thanks for elaborating...quetzalcoatl9 said:Yes, but this approach will be seen as ineffective in the end. It will only lend credibility to the argument that Islamic fundamentalism cannot be reasoned with - it will result in the hammer being dropped on the fundamentalists with even more fury. Eventually global sympathy for the Islamic fundamentalists will turn into disgust, as in the case of the Chechnyan terrorists bombing that Russian school.
Yes, indeed!alexandra said:This act demonstrates the futility of senseless, ill-informed acts of sectarian violence and the damage that can result from such actions.
A very rational analysis indeed. However, terrorists are not rational. They are blinded by hatred.alexandra said:It is obvious that whichever group is responsible is acting on the basis of a flawed analysis: how can such acts possibly achieve their aims? All this violence is likely to achieve is to alienate ordinary British people and to result in tighter security regulations (that will impinge on domestic rights to privacy even further). Targetting civilians in politically motivated action is counter-productive (whatever the position of their country's leaders on this issue) - but an awareness of this fact depends on an in-depth knowledge of who/what 'the enemy' is (certainly not ordinary people) and a logical analysis of what action is required to change things.
This is precisely why it is important to study a situation and analyse it fully before taking any action.
alexandra said:Yes, q - this is exactly what I meant. Thanks for elaborating...
You are undoubtedly correct in so far as the western world's view of radical Islam will become even more hardened but the fundamentalists are not trying to win their support anyway.quetzalcoatl9 said:Yes, but this approach will be seen as ineffective in the end. It will only lend credibility to the argument that Islamic fundamentalism cannot be reasoned with - it will result in the hammer being dropped on the fundamentalists with even more fury. Eventually global sympathy for the Islamic fundamentalists will turn into disgust, as in the case of the Chechnyan terrorists bombing that Russian school.
You might be right, though I think the motive is to punish, not to offer an ultimatum. In fact, I get the impression this is the end result of earlier ultimata: "We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid."pattylou said:Their stated intent (if the group claiming responsibility is legitimately responsible) was to have troops withdrawn from Iraq.
They claimed they warned london to withdraw troops, and that therefore God forgives their actions.
They threaten that they are warning 2 other countries also.
I completely agree with Alexandra - this action will not inspire the removal of troops from Iraq.
My thoughts exactly!Art said:You are undoubtedly correct in so far as the western world's view of radical Islam will become even more hardened but the fundamentalists are not trying to win their support anyway.
It is a terrific victory for these extremists if they can provoke the western powers into a massive retaliatory strike as invariably this results in the deaths and suffering of moderate muslims too. This in turn lends justification to the next attrocity they commit, provides new recruits and moves the moderate bloc of muslims further away from the western world and delivers them into the hands of the extremists.
siddharth said:My thoughts exactly!
In my opinion, it is going to be impossible to win such a war against terror ONLY using strong retaliatory strikes. This would only enable the terrorists to gain more recruits. What should be done at a fundamental level is to provide a science oriented education. The reason that most extremists commit these terrible acts is because they really believe what they do is right. Once you teach people to question things, like how we do in science, then they will start questioning their irrational beliefs. Once that happens they are very much less likely to blow up innocent civilians over some idea they know might be wrong.
Of course, whatever I have said above maybe totally inaccurate, but I just thought that I should share my views.
Art said:You are undoubtedly correct in so far as the western world's view of radical Islam will become even more hardened but the fundamentalists are not trying to win their support anyway.
The only way ultimately to stop this kind of endless slaughter is to remove their reasons for being and remove the support these fanatics hold within the muslim communities / countries.
It is a terrific victory for these extremists if they can provoke the western powers into a massive retaliatory strike as invariably this results in the deaths and suffering of moderate muslims too. This in turn lends justification to the next attrocity they commit, provides new recruits and moves the moderate bloc of muslims further away from the western world and delivers them into the hands of the extremists.
quetzalcoatl9 said:i disagree.
"educating" them will not stop terrorism. infact, most of the terrorist are quite skilled in science and engineering. blowing up a bridge, or something like 9/11, doesn't take place without significant engineering analysis.
siddharth said:What engineering analysis is required to blow up a bridge other than to use the bomb? Similarly in 9/11 the terrorists only had to fly a plane.
Probably to make a bomb you require some analysis. But, what I think happens is that people like the terrorists learn to use the bombs without ever really understanding the physics behind it. For a really simple example, they could have been told, to connect this wire here and so on. But they may have not been taught about the flow of electrons across it.
The above statement is just an assumption, but considering that most of the terrorists are trained at places where scientific education is scarce, the above scenario (where people learn how to use stuff, but do not understand how it works) seems most likely to me. I cannot imagine how any person, other than one who blindly believes in what he is doing, can commit these acts.
I don't think they understand a lot of what they use but they are able to use it anyway.
siddharth said:And calculating the energy required? That's a wrong statement because there is no relation between the "energy that was required" and the WTC falling down.
siddharth said:What I am trying to say is that they probably do not understand about the physics behind it.
The causes of the hostilities of some Muslims and Arabs have long been in the making, and the solution is not simple.siddharth said:In my opinion, it is going to be impossible to win such a war against terror ONLY using strong retaliatory strikes. This would only enable the terrorists to gain more recruits. What should be done at a fundamental level is to provide a science oriented education. The reason that most extremists commit these terrible acts is because they really believe what they do is right. Once you teach people to question things, like how we do in science, then they will start questioning their irrational beliefs. Once that happens they are very much less likely to blow up innocent civilians over some idea they know might be wrong.
Of course, whatever I have said above maybe totally inaccurate, but I just thought that I should share my views.
Geniere, do you realize that this statement is bigotted and simplistic, and that it is likely to incite hatred on ethnic/religious grounds? I guess you do - this is precisely what you are trying to do. As if all believers of the Muslim faith were terrorists! This statement is way out of line, in my opinion. It is racist.GENIERE said:Moderate Muslim, what’s that? I’ve not been able to find any unqualified condemnation by a Muslim cleric or government. Muslims will pay a high price for their tacit support of terrorism. A NYC muslim group wishes to purchase 50 or so acres of land in my very rural community for a youth/religious camp. I think they can fugedaboudit. There also seems to be a family run gas-station/food-store with some very obvious fire, electrical and sanitary code violations.
...
Yes, I noticed that too As I have said before (several times) on these discussion boards, I don't argue against individuals, and I have nothing personal against anyone in particular - I simply honestly state my reasoned opinions about issues being discussed. Sometimes this results in my agreeing with opinions expressed by people who are ordinarily my 'opponents'. Why, once I even agreed with something Pengwuino posted (no-one was more surprised than I).quetzalcoatl9 said:then we agree on at least one thing
Moderate Muslim, what’s that? I’ve not been able to find any unqualified condemnation by a Muslim cleric or government. Muslims will pay a high price for their tacit support of terrorism. A NYC muslim group wishes to purchase 50 or so acres of land in my very rural community for a youth/religious camp. I think they can fugedaboudit. There also seems to be a family run gas-station/food-store with some very obvious fire, electrical and sanitary code violations.
Obviously on that occasion you were wrong jk Penqwuinoalexandra said:Why, once I even agreed with something Pengwuino posted (no-one was more surprised than I).