Terrorist Attack hits London, City on Alert

  • Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date
  • #26
1,134
9
I am so sorry your country has had to endure this barbaric, cowardly form of attack. There is no excuse for harming your citizens.
 
  • #27
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,711
7
El Hombre Invisible said:
Even if 2012 was the reason for timing the attack, the motive for an attack at all is not going to be what amounts to an international sports day. The motive, most likely, will be Iraq. Personally I'd go with G8 as the reason for the timing, not the Olympics. The G8 summit has been known about for some time - the 2012 Olympics is too recent an announcement for an attack to be planned.
Indeed, Blair seemed to have been sure that these attacks were intended to coincide with the opening of the G8 Summit. I doubt anybody would have gone to these extremes because of the Olympics decision.
 
  • #28
Clausius2
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,435
5
El Hombre Invisible said:
Even if 2012 was the reason for timing the attack, the motive for an attack at all is not going to be what amounts to an international sports day. The motive, most likely, will be Iraq. Personally I'd go with G8 as the reason for the timing, not the Olympics. The G8 summit has been known about for some time - the 2012 Olympics is too recent an announcement for an attack to be planned.
I don't know. Maybe you're right. Let's wait a bit and see what say the english government. A terrible day. Now I heard the deaths could be near 50 persons (it has been said by the italian Internal affairs Minister) . In Madrid it was the same: every people said many less deaths just after the bombing than it really was when some hours passed. This number could be increased.
 
  • #29
181
0
El Hombre Invisible said:
Even if 2012 was the reason for timing the attack, the motive for an attack at all is not going to be what amounts to an international sports day. The motive, most likely, will be Iraq. Personally I'd go with G8 as the reason for the timing, not the Olympics. The G8 summit has been known about for some time - the 2012 Olympics is too recent an announcement for an attack to be planned.
You have made a good point there. The result of who will host the Olympic 2012 is just roughly a day. Such few bombs attack in such a short time should have needed more time.
 
  • #31
551
1
Really sick people :mad:. I'm not leaving the house today.
 
  • #32
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
15
They say it had to have been planned for days so theres no way it was for the olympic decision unless they planted bombs in paris and london and maybe NYC which is just highly unlikely.
 
  • #33
181
0
well, but we can also say that the news of Olympics 2012 made the bomb planning earlier than scheduled.
 
  • #34
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,149
64
El Hombre Invisible said:
Personally I'd go with G8 as the reason for the timing, not the Olympics.
And there were 7 explosions, did the 8th not go off? makes you wonder..
 
  • #35
509
0
Wow, 2 people dead. Why is this even making the news? Do you have any idea how frequently 2 people die just of natural causes in London? Every ten minutes.
 
  • #36
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,149
64
BicycleTree said:
Wow, 2 people dead. Why is this even making the news? Do you have any idea how frequently 2 people die just of natural causes in London? Every ten minutes.
Are you serious? How often do people die due to a bombing in London, sure there is news value. And do expect for that number to go up.
 
  • #37
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,711
7
BicycleTree said:
Wow, 2 people dead. Why is this even making the news? Do you have any idea how frequently 2 people die just of natural causes in London? Every ten minutes.
Get a grip.

2 people confirmed dead. There are still people in ambulances, casualty, operating theatres, and even stuck in tunnels. There have been four confirmed explosions, do you not see this as even a minor event?
 
  • #38
According to BBC on TV and on their website, there were 6, not 7, explosions.
 
  • #39
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,711
7
The actual number of explosions has been confused by wounded people emerging from different underground stations, where the explosions did not happen at stations themselves but in the tunnels between them.
 
  • #40
509
0
To go up? To what? Five dead? Wow, it would shock me if five people died in London. Although it happens every twenty-five minutes. I guess I get shocked easily.

Yeah, I'm not literally surprised that this is making the news. I am asking why people think stuff like this is important. Two people dead is not even remotely statistically significant. Move on to issues like obesity--now that is significant. Terrorism has a lot less chance of hurting the Western world than big macs do.
 
  • #41
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,711
7
BicycleTree said:
To go up? To what? Five dead? Wow, it would shock me if five people died in London. Although it happens every twenty-five minutes. I guess I get shocked easily.

Yeah, I'm not literally surprised that this is making the news. I am asking why people think stuff like this is important. Two people dead is not even remotely statistically significant. Move on to issues like obesity--now that is significant. Terrorism has a lot less chance of hurting the Western world than big macs do.
I don't think this is the right time to belittle the horrible events which happened this morning.
 
  • #42
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
15
We got another a-hole in my home forum saying a few people dead is trivial... whats with people???
 
  • #43
BicycleTree said:
To go up? To what? Five dead? Wow, it would shock me if five people died in London. Although it happens every twenty-five minutes. I guess I get shocked easily.

Yeah, I'm not literally surprised that this is making the news. I am asking why people think stuff like this is important. Two people dead is not even remotely statistically significant. Move on to issues like obesity--now that is significant. Terrorism has a lot less chance of hurting the Western world than big macs do.
I try to avoid replying to posts like this, but I'll make an exception. The news is that a terrorist attack has occurred in London, not that two people have just died. There are hundreds of people injured in hospital and many more trapped in the Underground. '2' people have been confirmed dead (actually 6 now). That does not mean only two people have died. We'll have to wait to get the final count and I HOPE it is not much more than what we've already heard but I fear otherwise. Anyway, it is a significant story to appear in the news, unless you think deliberate killing of innocent people is particularly boring. Yes, it happens - and it's usually in the news. Now, out of respect for those already bereaved, and those who may soon find out they are bereaved, will you please keep your off-hand and quite frankly appalling remarks in your head.
 
  • #44
47
1
BicycleTree said:
To go up? To what? Five dead? Wow, it would shock me if five people died in London. Although it happens every twenty-five minutes. I guess I get shocked easily.

Yeah, I'm not literally surprised that this is making the news. I am asking why people think stuff like this is important. Two people dead is not even remotely statistically significant. Move on to issues like obesity--now that is significant. Terrorism has a lot less chance of hurting the Western world than big macs do.
You're being utterly utterly ridiculous and insensitive. If you don't think it's important then don't post about it. Not only have there been loads of casualties, it's also brought London to a complete standstill and has people all over shocked and panicking about people who might've been hurt. Bugger off out of this thread.
 
  • #45
509
0
Even if fifty people died, it would not shock me. I would shake my head at the terrorists' stupidity and aggression. But as far as respect for the bereaved--do you have any idea how frequently fifty people die worldwide? You can calculate it out easily. Do you go around in a constant state of respect for those bereaved? Of course not--you simply go about your life.
 
  • #46
509
0
Fifty people die worldwide in somewhat less than twenty seconds.
 
  • #47
509
0
Well, I got a paper to write now but always keep a sense of perspective. You should be respecting the far greater number of people currently grieving those dead of obesity and related illnesses, not inciting yourself and those around you about a statistically insignificant "threat" that has virtually no chance of hurting you or those you love.
 
  • #48
BicycleTree said:
Even if fifty people died, it would not shock me. I would shake my head at the terrorists' stupidity and aggression. But as far as respect for the bereaved--do you have any idea how frequently fifty people die worldwide? You can calculate it out easily. Do you go around in a constant state of respect for those bereaved? Of course not--you simply go about your life.
No, but nor do I go around asking those who've just spent the last hour making sure all their friends are still alive why they find this newsworthy. I'm not asking you to feel anything - just get out of people's faces with your flippant disregard for human life and people's feelings. You are disgusting all of us.
 
  • #49
DocToxyn
Science Advisor
424
0
BicycleTree said:
To go up? To what? Five dead? Wow, it would shock me if five people died in London. Although it happens every twenty-five minutes. I guess I get shocked easily.

Yeah, I'm not literally surprised that this is making the news. I am asking why people think stuff like this is important. Two people dead is not even remotely statistically significant. Move on to issues like obesity--now that is significant. Terrorism has a lot less chance of hurting the Western world than big macs do.
If you really want to talk numbers and statistics you have to compare not the simple (yet horrible) fact that people died, but rather how they died. The day before this happened, did anyone die of bomb attacks - no, the following day, even if only five people, died thats 5X the number that died the previous day. That seems very significant from a numbers standpoint, but tossing around numbers and stats really belittles that fact that innocent people died and thats wrong. I can see your point BT, but it's still in poor taste given the circumstances. My heart goes out to those who have lost in this unfortunate situation.
 
  • #50
BicycleTree said:
Well, I got a paper to write now but always keep a sense of perspective. You should be respecting the far greater number of people currently grieving those dead of obesity and related illnesses, not inciting yourself and those around you about a statistically insignificant "threat" that has virtually no chance of hurting you or those you love.
Those who die from obesity were not murdered indiscrimantely by people they have no qualm with - they die due to their own inability to look after they're own health! It is you who needs a sense of perspective.
 

Related Threads on Terrorist Attack hits London, City on Alert

Replies
3
Views
766
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
970
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Replies
53
Views
4K
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Top