What Caused the Recent Bombings in London?

[Hurkyl]

(I won't insult them by using the word 'liberation' as there have been too many civilian casulties)

Because, of course, liberations don't involve civilian casualties.

It's not like the French suffered 60,000+ civilian casualties from allied bombing alone, or the National Liberation Front killed 70,000 during Algeria's War of Independence...

The stratagy they are using is exactly the same one we would use if we were facing a force of superior numbers.

I don't think the U.S. would turn to blowing up American citizens if we were facing a force of superior numbers. Coalition troops don't even appear to be the primary target of insurgent attacks: Iraq's own police and military forces are. Recent on the hit-list are diplomats from Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Bahrain!

You're deluding yourself if you think the insurgency is a guerilla war against American troops.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Because, of course, liberations don't involve civilian casualties.

It's not like the French suffered 60,000+ civilian casualties from allied bombing alone, or the National Liberation Front killed 70,000 during Algeria's War of Independence...




I don't think the U.S. would turn to blowing up American citizens if we were facing a force of superior numbers. Coalition troops don't even appear to be the primary target of insurgent attacks: Iraq's own police and military forces are. Recent on the hit-list are diplomats from Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Bahrain!

You're deluding yourself if you think the insurgency is a guerilla war against American troops.

You are forgetting something.

Bin Laden only threatened to bankrupt the USA.

As long as the USA stays occupying Iraq, they are spending about 1/4 of a billion dollars a day.

So ... they hit the locals who would replace them; the people they consider collaberators.

This keeps the USA constantly there with no hope of leaving thus performing the second task of demoralization.

Bush is already under siege in office now and moving towards being more of a lame duck than ever.

Dissention is happening in the ranks and the administration is having to 'explain' itself more and more.

Do you think that is just an old guy in a cave who doesn't think too much about what he's doing?

 

[russ_watters]

You are forgetting something.

Bin Laden only threatened to bankrupt the USA.

Not true at all. Read his "open letter to the west". I sourced it in another thread recently (possibly this one) where someone else made a similarly erroneous statement.

 

[Burnsys]

No. they are barbarian radicals, islamist extremist figthers who olny want to kill civilians becouse they hate fredom.
Anything else should be a consecuence of the previous sentence...

 

[The Smoking Man]

Not true at all. Read his "open letter to the west". I sourced it in another thread recently (possibly this one) where someone else made a similarly erroneous statement.

Well, I've got this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1265582/posts
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200411/ai_n8599755

Full Letter

Exerpt:

"As previously mentioned, it was easy for us to provoke this administration and to drag it [after us]. It was enough for us to send two Jihad fighters to the farthest east to hoist a rag on which 'Al-Qa'ida' was written - that was enough to cause generals to rush off to this place, thereby causing America human and financial and political losses, without it accomplishing anything worthy of mention, apart from giving business to [the generals'] private corporations. Besides, we gained experience in guerilla warfare and in conducting a war of attrition in our fight with the iniquitous, great power, that is, when we conducted a war of attrition against Russia with Jihad fighters for 10 years until they went bankrupt, with Allah's grace; as a result, they were forced to withdraw in defeat, all praise and thanks to Allah. We are continuing in the same policy - to make America bleed profusely to the point of bankruptcy, Allah willing. And that is not too difficult for Allah.

"Whoever says that Al-Qa'ida triumphed over the White House administration, or that the White House administration lost this war - this is not entirely accurate, for if we look carefully at the results, it is impossible to say that Al-Qa'ida is the only cause for these amazing gains. The White House policy, which strove to open war fronts so as to give business to their various corporations - be they in the field of armament, of oil, or of construction - also helped in accomplishing these astonishing achievements for Al-Qa'ida. It appeared to some analysts and diplomats as though we and the White House play as one team to score a goal against the United States of America, even though our intentions differ. Such ideas, and some others, were pointed out by a British diplomat in the course of a lecture at the Royal Institute for International Affairs; for example, that Al-Qa'ida spent $500,000 on the event [9/11] while America lost in the event and its subsequent effects more than 500 billion dollars; that is to say that each of Al-Qa'ida's dollars defeated one million American dollars, thanks to Allah's grace. This is in addition to the fact that America lost a large number of jobs, and as for the [federal] deficit, it lost a record number estimated at a trillion dollars.

"Even more serious for America is the fact that the Jihad fighters have recently forced Bush to resort to an emergency budget in order to continue the fighting in Afghanistan and in Iraq, which proves the success of the plan of bleeding [America] to the point of bankruptcy, Allah willing.

"Indeed, all of this makes it clear that Al-Qa'ida won gains; but on the other hand, it also makes it clear that the Bush administration won gains as well, since anyone who looks at the scope of the contracts won by large dubious corporations like Halliburton and other similar ones that have ties to Bush and to his administration will become convinced that the losing side is in fact you, the American people, and your economy.

In other words, he sees the presence in Iraq as a drain on your economy and that it is Bush who is complicit in this mess when he allows Halliburton to criminally overbill the government ... all the time awarding new contracts to them.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

El Hombre Invisible, I see your point... Yet these people wouldn't do these things if our politics towards ME changed, would they? Perhaps you would have total nutters that will insist on killing people in the name of islam, but the sain sympathiser would not encourage this behavour (terrorism) and just like in Ireland the Terrorism would be force to stop, by lack of funding etc

One would have hoped that, had the Western presence in the Middle East not already provoked terrorist action by Al Qaeda, then terrorism as a default MO for more such groups would not have occurred. The problem is, now the ball is rolling, even if we gave in and pulled out of the Middle East (occupation of Iraq, the Israel-Palestine peace process, et al) I fear we would not see the end of such attacks by short-term, arbitrarily-motived groups. And funding, I should think, would not be an issue. Where groups like this come together due to a common "re-education" by brainwashers who preach the need for terrorist action but don't get their hands dirty themselves, you've essentially got a fast-sprouting, short-lived, self-funded unit that will either act or not. Once it is done, that group is basically over and done with, either dead (by choice or by accident), arrested, or otherwise without the means (such as funds, like you said) or inclination to act again, and it is time for a new group to spring up. That way you can have one long-term instigator who doesn't spend a penny or get involved directly, and many different groups. The power of religion...

 

[Burnsys]

Well, I've got this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1265582/posts
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200411/ai_n8599755

Full Letter

In other words, he sees the presence in Iraq as a drain on your economy and that it is Bush who is complicit in this mess when he allows Halliburton to criminally overbill the government ... all the time awarding new contracts to them.

Carlyle's Way Red Herring Business Magazine
Like everyone else in the United States, the group stood transfixed as the events of September 11 unfolded. Present were former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci, former secretary of state James Baker III, and representatives of the bin Laden family. This was not some underground presidential bunker or Central Intelligence Agency interrogation room. It was the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C., the plush setting for the annual investor conference of one of the most powerful, well-connected, and secretive companies in the world: the Carlyle Group. And since September 11, this little-known company has become unexpectedly important...

And as the Carlyle investors watched the World Trade towers go down, the group's prospects went up. In running what its own marketing literature spookily calls "a vast, interlocking, global network of businesses and investment professionals" that operates within the so-called iron triangle of industry, government, and the military, the Carlyle Group leaves itself open to any number of conflicts of interest and stunning ironies. For example, it is hard to ignore the fact that Osama bin Laden's family members, who renounced their son ten years ago, stood to gain financially from the war being waged against him until late October, when public criticism of the relationship forced them to liquidate their holdings in the firm. Or consider that U.S. president George W. Bush is in a position to make budgetary decisions that could pad his father's bank account. But for the Carlyle Group, walking that narrow line is the art of doing business at the murky intersection of Washington politics, national security, and private capital; mastering it has enabled the group to amass $12 billion in funds under management.

 

[Daminc]

Because, of course, liberations don't involve civilian casualties.

It's not like the French suffered 60,000+ civilian casualties from allied bombing alone, or the National Liberation Front killed 70,000 during Algeria's War of Independence...

I don't think the U.S. would turn to blowing up American citizens if we were facing a force of superior numbers. Coalition troops don't even appear to be the primary target of insurgent attacks: Iraq's own police and military forces are. Recent on the hit-list are diplomats from Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Bahrain!

You're deluding yourself if you think the insurgency is a guerilla war against American troops.

I don't know if you're just being deliberately arguementitive or you actually mean what you say

Firstly, the comment you first quoted was aimed at the original 'invasion' had nothing to do with 'liberation' but illusive WMD, secondly the inability of many american soldiers to distinguish who the enemy is has resulted in many non-combatives dead. This has nothing to do with the iraqi people directly and everything to do with the enforcement of western policies.

Western policies may ultimately be good for the people of Iraq...or they may cause the ME to spiral into civil war for many years resulting in thousands of deaths, poverty and disease...

Only history will answer that one.

As for:

"I don't think the U.S. would turn to blowing up American citizens if we were facing a force of superior numbers"

U.S. = murder capital of the world

That's beside the point. If say, China had invaded Britain, home defence stratergies would include small groups of military and civilians blowing them up left, right and center, poisoning water supplies, sabotaging equipment etc, etc. If some British were working with kthe Chinese they might be considered traitors and be viewed as legitimate targets etc etc

 

[Burnsys]

"I don't think the U.S. would turn to blowing up American citizens if we were facing a force of superior numbers"

Yes if they where colaborating with the enemy force..
Anyway america did kill foreing civilians when they drop the atomic bombs over civilian areas. becouse if not they would be a lot of more casualtys!
I don't wan't to think what they are capable of if they are facing a force of superior numbers...

 

[russ_watters]

No. they are barbarian radicals, islamist extremist figthers who olny want to kill civilians becouse they hate fredom.

Getting warmer...

...ahh, yes, I did post it earlier in this thread. How soon we forget: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

Paraphrasing, he wants us to:

1. Embrace Islam
2. Give up our way of life (embracing Islam would also require that).
3. Examine ourselves honestly (the way he does )
4. Stop supporting anyone who opposes forces that are Islamic, anywhere. that includes Israel, Russia (against the Chechens), Manilla, etc.
5. "...get out of our lands."
6. Do not interfere with our internal politics. (he doesn't specify who "our" is)
7. Treat us as equals. (again, he doesn't specify who "us" is)

And if we don't comply:

If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation... Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands.

That means killing all who don't comply. This isn't simply a fight against the US government, our way of life itself is the enemy of Bin Laden.

 

[Burnsys]

Getting warmer...

...ahh, yes, I did post it earlier in this thread. How soon we forget: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

Paraphrasing, he wants us to:

1. Embrace Islam
2. Give up our way of life (embracing Islam would also require that).
3. Examine ourselves honestly (the way he does )
4. Stop supporting anyone who opposes forces that are Islamic, anywhere. that includes Israel, Russia (against the Chechens), Manilla, etc.
5. "...get out of our lands."
6. Do not interfere with our internal politics. (he doesn't specify who "our" is)
7. Treat us as equals. (again, he doesn't specify who "us" is)

And if we don't comply: That means killing all who don't comply. This isn't simply a fight against the US government, our way of life itself is the enemy of Bin Laden.

Di you get that seven points from that link?? wtf!

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.
---------------------------------------
etc. etc.

Of course, you use some of their fanatism in religion to automaticaly dismis any real motive the us has give them to atack you...Some of them beign fanatical extremist does not automaticaly make all of them like that (i am not referring to muslims but to resistance figthers, insurgents the way you want to call them), and doesn't make US atrocities disapear... Don't forget America is giving weapons and money to a dictator in ubekistan who boils his people alive, when the sons of this boiled people will start putting bombs in america, are you going to call them fanatical extremist to?

 

[Anttech]

El Hombre Invisible, with your reasoning you would conclude that there is no hope... I think there is, Islam aint all bad, really... I do believe that there will be an uprising inside Islam which is anti-terror, these people will quash this barbaric behavior... But for these people to actually be listened to we (the west) need to pull out of the ME, and stop medeling Costra Nostra style, each to mind there own buisness... If this happens then Peace loving Muslums will not have a counter argument to removing the radicals from their people

 

[Anttech]

Burnsys--> give that man a cigar !

Well said...

 

[russ_watters]

Of course, you use some of their fanatism in religion to automaticaly dismis any real motive the us has give them to atack you...

That does not affect how wrong your previous statement was. Yes, they have reasons for what they do (who doesn't?) - that doesn't change the fact that the goal is to destroy our way of life.

 

[Burnsys]

That does not affect how wrong your previous statement was. Yes, they have reasons for what they do (who doesn't?) - that doesn't change the fact that the goal is to destroy our way of life.

Ok russ go to ubekistan and try a little of the American WAY OF LIFE!

 

[Hurkyl]

Firstly, the comment you first quoted was aimed at the original 'invasion' had nothing to do with 'liberation' but illusive WMD

Fine. I'll take this as a retraction of your suggestion that the number of civilian casualties has any bearing on whether it is appropriate to call it a 'liberation'.

secondly the inability of many american soldiers to distinguish who the enemy is has resulted in many non-combatives dead. This has nothing to do with the iraqi people directly and everything to do with the enforcement of western policies.

And the fact that insurgents often masquerade as non-combatives would have nothing to do with the "inability of many American soldiers to distinguish who the enemy is".

But you make it sound like this is a primary cause of civilian casualties; I would be greatly surprised if the number of Iraqis killed because an American thought he was a combatant did not pale into comparison to the number of Iraqis killed as a result of insurgent activities, even if you disregard civilian police forces!

And, of course, there would be far fewer Iraqi civilians killed in actions against the insurgents if, y'know, insurgents didn't operate in civilian areas.

U.S. = murder capital of the world

Hurray for parroting sound-bytes!

The U.S. doesn't even show up on the list: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Unless you look at total murders, which biases against countries with large populations... in which case the U.S. still isn't even at the top: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur

More lists: http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

That's beside the point. If say, China had invaded Britain, home defence stratergies would include small groups of military and civilians blowing them up left, right and center, poisoning water supplies, sabotaging equipment etc, etc.

And if, for example, the British insurgency poisoned the water supplies used by the general public, I would condemn that act.

Are you willing to condemn actions taken by the insurgency? Or are you going to give them a carte blanche simply because you don't like the fact the coalition invaded?

 

[russ_watters]

Ok russ go to ubekistan and try a little of the American WAY OF LIFE!

Huh? Uzbekistan? What does that have to do with the fact that Al Qaeda wants to destroy the American way of life in the US, and more generally, the western way of life everywhere?

 

[Burnsys]

Huh? Uzbekistan? What does that have to do with the fact that Al Qaeda wants to destroy the American way of life in the US, and more generally, the western way of life everywhere?

Exactly russ, america proyects a very very diferent "Way of life" on foreing countrys , They say they embrace freedom, but then bush and rumsfeld go to ubekistan (just to show 1 example) and give weapons and aid to a dictator who is against fredom of the press agains any kind of freedom who kill disent and boils people alive.. then they take pictures togheter.
So tell me, what way of life does an ubekistan citizen sees?? they see they have a dictator, they have no fredom, and they se amercia as the one who help their opresor, where do you think ubekistan dictator get the resources it need to keep it people enslaved? What could the people of ubekistan think about the american way of life...

 

[The Smoking Man]

Getting warmer...

...ahh, yes, I did post it earlier in this thread. How soon we forget: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

Paraphrasing, he wants us to:

1. Embrace Islam
2. Give up our way of life (embracing Islam would also require that).
3. Examine ourselves honestly (the way he does )
4. Stop supporting anyone who opposes forces that are Islamic, anywhere. that includes Israel, Russia (against the Chechens), Manilla, etc.
5. "...get out of our lands."
6. Do not interfere with our internal politics. (he doesn't specify who "our" is)
7. Treat us as equals. (again, he doesn't specify who "us" is)

And if we don't comply: That means killing all who don't comply. This isn't simply a fight against the US government, our way of life itself is the enemy of Bin Laden.

Russ,

I am sure you believe what you just 'paraphrased' however your letter is from 2002.

The letter I quoted to you about bankrupting the USA was from 2 years later and actually states that he wants to bankrupt the USA. (October 29, 2004)

No matter what he said in 2002, his agenda seems to have changed so your 'correction' of me and the other poster is wrong.

He does state bankruptcy is his goal and that the Bush administration is helping him in this matter.

I suggest you read the letter contained in this link and update your information.

Bin Ladens words start on page 3 and runs through page 8.

 

[stoned]

not only wars in afghanistan and iraq are bancrupting USA, but "our way of life" is simply not sustainable in the long run.
we fight some phony wars with evil moslems, while 2 or 3 nations on Earth are getting stronger, and all this terror stuff is just a smoke screen.

 

[Anttech]

The U.S. doesn't even show up on the list: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Unless you look at total murders, which biases against countries with large populations... in which case the U.S. still isn't even at the top: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur

More lists: http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

dont buy that one bit... According to that list Canada has a higher murder rate / person then USA, also Greece does and Finland... come on Finland? They may have a higher than normal suicide rate, but Finish people arent gun tooting gangsters..

It doesn't take into account Iraq, where people are getting murder in 10-100 daily right now

 

[Daminc]

Are you willing to condemn actions taken by the insurgency? Or are you going to give them a carte blanche simply because you don't like the fact the coalition invaded?

Neither, there is something going on that I cannot see. If I was to take things at face value then yes the insurgents have a right to defend their country against what they see as invaders using whatever tactics they have available to them.

Also the conduct and stratergies employed by the American forces is something I cannot fathom. I have been in the British Army, I have studied tactics and I cannot for the life of me understand any of the tactics the Americans used. If I was to take it at face value I would say the American commanders are sending their troops into places without any thought to the condition of the troops.

So I say again 'there is something going on that I cannot see'.

Also ref:

And the fact that insurgents often masquerade as non-combatives would have nothing to do with the "inability of many American soldiers to distinguish who the enemy is".

Strategy. As a result of donning civilian clothing the insurgents have goaded the Americans into shooting lots and lots of civilians which not only anger a lot of people but provide fuel for insurgent recrutment. So it's a win-win for them.

We had the same problem with the IRA and you didn't see us mowing down civilians just in case they were IRA now did we?

Oh, and by the way, it was the American people who were the biggest financial supporters of the I.R.A. People who paid to get British civilians in the streets of London murdered. So you have no right to stand on any moral high ground (America as a whole. I don't know you personally), the people of your country have supported terrorism in the past and, if we were to follow modern docterine we would have a right to invade America. And since you all have the right to bare arms you would all be potential combatants and thus targets.

This obviously the wrong thing to do. Just as it is wrong to invade any country because we believe they have terrorists there. There has to be another way.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

El Hombre Invisible, with your reasoning you would conclude that there is no hope... I think there is, Islam aint all bad, really... I do believe that there will be an uprising inside Islam which is anti-terror, these people will quash this barbaric behavior... But for these people to actually be listened to we (the west) need to pull out of the ME, and stop medeling Costra Nostra style, each to mind there own buisness... If this happens then Peace loving Muslums will not have a counter argument to removing the radicals from their people

It's not a case of Islam being all that bad any more than, with the IRA, Catholicism being all that bad. I don't know what it would take to end this. That's the worry. It has to end some time, I'm sure. Let's keep an eye on the Israel-Palestine problem. Here, people seem inclined to become suicide bombers regardless of the progress of the peace process, suggesting again that politics and even the Palestine cause (i.e. to have a Palestinian state) is not always the raison d'etre of such actions. I wonder here, too, what it will take to stop the killing. People put plans in place, announce ceasefires, then some psycho takes it upon himself to strap a bomb on his back, run over the border and take out as many people as he possibly can. Why? Because of past attrocities by the other side. Revenge (or honour, as it is no doubt called) seems more important than peace or progress. So then more housing areas are demolished, then more suicide bombers arrive, then another ceasefire, then another lone nut... and on and on it goes. Hopefully we'll one day just run out of nutters. But really, we simply have two neighbouring sets of people who hate each other's guts , and this hatred is prone with certain extremist types to manifest itself in violence, so even if peace is officially announced, I doubt that would be the end of it.

But as for us... I don't mean to be a pessimist, but I just don't have faith in these people being rational enough to meet any action on our part with a reappraisal of their methods. But yes, I guess the first step is for a culture intolerant of terrorism in the Middle East to emerge and, like you said, for that we need to perhaps make ourselves more inconspicuous. Another might be for mainly Islamic countries to fix on an agreed interpretation of the Koran, one that doesn't involve bloodshed at any opportunity, and drill this into its people from a very early age, include a distrust of fundementalist extremists... we could all do with reminders to beware false prophets. Objective media and open debate would be a necessity, since such institutions in the west are a large contributor to moderate thinking and give people a voice that doesn't just say: "Bang!" It would take far more co-operation and reason between countries than we'll ever see in our lifetimes.

 

[loseyourname]

dont buy that one bit... According to that list Canada has a higher murder rate / person then USA, also Greece does and Finland... come on Finland? They may have a higher than normal suicide rate, but Finish people arent gun tooting gangsters..

Is your personal incredulity supposed to contradict the data? Did you even look around the site? Their listings are incredibly extensive. They even have crime rates for unpaid diplomatic parking fines. Most of the information seems to come from the UN or from the countries themselves. Why would Finland overstate its own murder rate? And who said they were 'gun-toting' gangsters? They're actually not even on the list for murders using firearms. There are other ways to kill a man, you know.

It doesn't take into account Iraq, where people are getting murder in 10-100 daily right now

Presumably, war crimes are recorded differently.

What people seem to forget about the United States is that, compared to places like Europe, the population is still really spread out. In dense urban areas, the murder rate is much higher, but most of the country is still suburban and rural, where the murder rate is virtually nonexistent. In fact, I've never known of a single murder that's taken place in any city I've ever lived in, although admittedly, I've lived in good neighborhoods.

 

[chronon]

The U.S. doesn't even show up on the list: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Because the site doesn't have data for the U.S., not because it's below the bottom of the list. From the 'totals' list it looks like the figure for the U.S. should be about 0.05 per 1000.

 

[loseyourname]

Because the site doesn't have data for the U.S., not because it's below the bottom of the list. From the 'totals' list it looks like the figure for the U.S. should be about 0.05 per 1000.

0.04 if you take the population reported on the US Census as accurate. That would place it even with Armenia. The count is thought to be low by about 10 million, and those are just non-response households. The count gets even lower by not counting homeless or illegal people. This is all due to the Census Bureau not being allowed to use sampling in population counts (although it can be used for other counts performed by the Census).

 

[Hurkyl]

(Re: #231)

dont buy that one bit...

Okay. But the important thing is that nobody's provided any evidence supporting the characterization of the U.S. as the "Murder capital of the world": it's just a tired stereotype, much like calling Americans

gun tooting gangsters

You're not trying to foster hatred of Americans with that comment, are you?


(Re: #235)

Because the site doesn't have data for the U.S.

Good catch, thanks. My calculations give .044 murders per 1000 people, using the http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html , placing it around Bulgaria or Armenia (making it about 16th place), as loseyourname said.

 

[Anttech]

"Murder capital of the world": it's just a tired stereotype, much like calling Americans

its more of a stigma... But it isn't fly of the handle its true that USA has a very high Gun crime and murder rate compared to most other countries..

gun tooting gangsters


You're not trying to foster hatred of Americans with that comment, are you?

No I am not, don't take it personally... I hope you are not trying to foster any hatred towards me by insinuating that I was foster hatred towards USA

Just because I do not aggree with your politics doesn't mean I dislike your people

 

[loseyourname]

its more of a stigma... But it isn't fly of the handle its true that USA has a very high Gun crime and murder rate compared to most other countries..

If you took away DC, Detroit, St. Louis, and some isolated bad neighborhoods in LA and Philly, that wouldn't be the case. The vast bulk of the country is pretty safe. I don't even lock my doors when I leave my apartment or when I sleep at night, and it's not like I live in a rural small town. I'm only about 40 miles north of San Francisco.

Really, I don't see how anyone could call any country other than Columbia the "murder capital of the world" considering that Columbia's rate is double the next closest country.

 

[Anttech]

Anyway I always think of Johansbergh as the "Murder capital of the world"

And I know there are nice places and bad places in America...

 

[loseyourname]

Anyway I always think of Johansbergh as the "Murder capital of the world"

And I know there are nice places and bad places in America...

I've heard of Johannesburg as a murderous place, but personally, I've always thought of Medulla and Bogota when I hear the term "murder capital." It seems like people just walk the streets with uzis and M-16s strapped to their backs. Both cities may as well be owned by drug lords.

 

[Spin_Network]

Latest thoughts are that the 'Train-Terrorists', were murdered by the 'Bus-Bomber'. The Bus-Bomber came from the north of England, and was actually reported missing on the morning of the bombings, it is now pretty evident that this man(bus-bomber) set the mobile phone alarms, as a detonating factor.

All four terrorists were in one location in order for the devises to be primed, thus there was one person responcible for setting the activation devise(mobile phone alarm), this is why the 'first three' bombs detonated within a few seconds of each other, one man setting mobile alarms accumilates a 'Time-Lapse' of a few seconds, each alarm needs individual attention.

Thus departing from a single location, the Bus-Bomber MAY have told the individual bombers that their bombs were set, with respect to them being able to leave the location in sufficient time, to escape the blasts.

Having caught the No-30 Bus, he was actually in the process of setting the alarm on the Bomb/s he was preparing, when an 'incoming-call' (maybe from a distant relative worried about his wherabouts (first bombs were by now on TV?) ..actually either panicked him, or actually detonated the devises.

Quite Ironic don't you think!

Evidence of Murder?..Questions start to roll:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_obj...4762&headline=was-it-suicide---name_page.html

It is more than likely that the Bombers were duped, which leads to all manner of other questions which should be asked:

Why no shouts of "ALLAH AKHBAR"?

Why the vast amount of 'Identity Trail' bombers had upon their person (their job carrying out bombings is normally sufficient for entry into heaven , unless its in a future wherby I D cards are essentially the norm) ?

The meeting point, why did the FOUR BOMBERS all leave and meet at a specific location, high risk of capture?

There are more questions..but for now I leave it.

The Families of those murdered now, must include the Bombers families?

 

[Happeh]

There sure is a lot of debate about people in this thread. What about the actual bombing?

Did you guys here that some company was running terrorism simulation drills in the London tube at the exact same time the bombings took place? Some guy said it was a 1 and 20 or so zeroes probability there could be a real bombing at the exact same time as a bombing terrorism drill.

I read a chilling scenario someone dreamed up. Some guys go to those 4 pakistani men and asks them if they want to make some money. They say sure. The men tell them "We are doing a terrorism exercise on the London tube. We want you to pretend to be terrorist. Here is your backpack. Here is your target. Go to the tube and be here at such and such a time. After the simulation, come back to the office and we will pay you off". The men think they are doing a patriotic, top secret job, and they are getting paid for it.

What was even more chilling was the descriptions being bandied about the bus bomber. He is described as "diving in his backpack and messing around". The guy who wrote the scenario above also included the idea "What if the man on the bus heard that the tube had been blown up? He was escaping the area. Then he thinks, what if the fake bomb in this backpack is a real bomb? He reaches in the backpack to fiddle with whatever is in there and then the bomb goes off.

I don't know how much connection to reality the story has. Sounded good though. I wonder if they were just innocent guys that got blown up? They are muslim and dead so they cannot say anything. The government can blame them for anything. Someone else made the humorous comment "you notice how terrorists seem to have indestructible ID cards?". They found Atta's ID at the WTC somehow and they found the ID's of these men who they are saying were suicide bombers.

If a bomb blows up an entire train, wouldn't it blow up the ID located in the man's pocket located at the absolute most, 2 feet away from the actual bomb? From the bomb in the back pack down to the wallet in the man's rear pocket might be 2 feet.

 

[stoned]

If a bomb blows up an entire train, wouldn't it blow up the ID located in the man's pocket located at the absolute most, 2 feet away from the actual bomb? From the bomb in the back pack down to the wallet in the man's rear pocket might be 2 feet.

Our Professor R.W. going to give give you nice lecture about kinetics and chemistry any time soon.
I think this whole thing stinks like hell of government involvement.

 

[Anttech]

*puts tin hat on*

time for the conspiracy theorists