Chaos, death and disaster - several bombs have just exploded in London ;-(

"0ld Yank" same@ Isee.net wrote in message
...

"Michel Boucher" wrote in message
...
"0ld Yank" same@ Isee.net wrote in
:

I am wary of claims at this point and hope the British security
people are also careful before jumping the gun (as it were).

Chances are there's some video. We'll know who's responsible
soon.

Yes. We certainly don't want to blame those poor, disenfranchised
Al Queda Islamic terrorists unnecessarily, do we?

I guess if you're only interested in vengeance, it doesn't matter
whether those you choose to be the guilty parties actually did it or
not. Personally, I favour being correct over being in a hurry.



Are we in agreement here?

If not, let's start eliminating the possible nonsuspects. It should be
someone who has not been proliferating terror for the last 12-15 years.
Let's see, there's that incident of the USS Cole; the Indonesian blast
that
killed hundreds; the Spanish train incident; the two attacks on the NY
Trade
Center in a span of years; the plethora of Embassies blown up around the
country; the....... hmmmm. Well, then there's, uh,..... Hmmmm. We
know who did all those things, but of course, we can't just assume that
the
same Islamic vermin were responsible for this horror. I mean, that would
be
unChristian of us not to mention stupid.

For the life of me, I can't think of anyone at all who would do such a
thing
to innocent people. Can you?

Well, mebbe whoever did it left a video g. Damn that was a good line.

But vengeance is not the impetus for retaliation. If it were, then the
West
could simply nuke Mecca and get it over with. But self preservation
should
be our motive--and in that vein, nuking Mecca might not be such a bad
idea,
eh?

Of course, we'd need to give them advance notice so that all the
noninvolved
Muslims living there could high-tail it to the city limits. Ten minutes
ought to do it.

--Yankee Viejo

Old Yank responds to his own interesting article and writes:

I have had second thoughts.

I read that a camel carrying a full grown man can run 30 miles an hour.
That's a mile every two minutes. Assuming that the camel can run for ten
minutes, it could only get five miles away from the blast.

That's prolly not far enough and we need to give them more time because my
granddaughters have a fondness for camels.

--Yankee Viejo

"Bill Sornson" wrote in
:

Michel Boucher wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote in
:

{snippage}

Chances are there's some video. We'll know who's responsible
soon.

What do you think? That they left one? No one has claimed
responsibility for the attacks on the US on September 11, so why
do you expect this would be any different?

B) OBL/AQ /did/ claim "credit" for 9-11,

Ok, I had forgotten about that...he did so two months after the
events and actually offered little in the way of substantiating
evidence. At the time, I didn't take it seriously, but I guess you
did. Nonetheless, if Al-Qaeda waited two months to announce that (if
in fact they did it), what makes you think they wouldn't act in the
same way now?

and at least
one group has already done so for yesterday's attacks, too.

And what if two groups claim it? What if the group(s) that claim(s)
it had nothing to do with it?

Back in 1970, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police falsified a
communication which was claiming to originate with a cell of FLQ
insurgents in Québec. The communiqué was crafted in such a way that
it would elicit an angry response from the population because the
first (legitimate) communiqué was eliciting a sympathetic response.
They also set fire to a barn and blamed it on the FLQ. They were
embarassed into admitting their responsibility in these actions and
have since been subjected to complaints commission.

In 1940, the National Film Board of Canada was charged with making a
piece of propaganda which is sometimes used without knowing it's
propaganda, Hitler's famous "dance" at Versailles.

Obviously you (and many others) are prepared to believe the first
thing that fits your preconceived notions.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

Michel wrote:

And what if two groups claim it? What if the group(s) that claim(s)
it had nothing to do with it?

Seems to me that any group claiming responsibility ought to be ready to take
the heat for it.

Bob

"Bob" wrote in
:

Michel wrote:

And what if two groups claim it? What if the group(s) that
claim(s) it had nothing to do with it?

Seems to me that any group claiming responsibility ought to be
ready to take the heat for it.

So far, no one I've heard says they know anything about this group.
In fact I hadn't heard about them and we hear about most of these
groups regularly. Possibly it was being kept quiet but if so, why?
It could also be a group of anti-Islamists taking advantage of the
opportunity to cause trouble for muslims in Britain and elsewhere.

I guess thinking outside the box is not a priority for you? From the
Beeb:

"Home Secretary Charles Clarke said looking for potential bombers was
like searching for "needles in haystacks".

"A claim on the website of a previously unknown group, the Secret
Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe,
saying it was behind the blast, was now being taken seriously, he
said."

If you're old enough to remember the assassination of Franco's
successor, Admiral Luis Carrero Blanco, who had stated that his
objective upon coming to power was a return to Spain of Rota base
near Seville, you'll recall that the first reports indicated the
killers were headed towards Malaga. But as soon as ETA claimed
responsibility, the manhunt towards the south ceased. Why? Had they
been wrong in pursuing the murderers, or did ETA provide them with a
political expedient they could live with?

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

Michel Boucher wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote in
:

Michel Boucher wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote in
:

{snippage}

Chances are there's some video. We'll know who's responsible
soon.

What do you think? That they left one? No one has claimed
responsibility for the attacks on the US on September 11, so why
do you expect this would be any different?

B) OBL/AQ /did/ claim "credit" for 9-11,

Ok, I had forgotten about that...he did so two months after the
events and actually offered little in the way of substantiating
evidence. At the time, I didn't take it seriously, but I guess you
did. Nonetheless, if Al-Qaeda waited two months to announce that (if
in fact they did it), what makes you think they wouldn't act in the
same way now?

and at least
one group has already done so for yesterday's attacks, too.

And what if two groups claim it? What if the group(s) that claim(s)
it had nothing to do with it?

Back in 1970, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police falsified a
communication which was claiming to originate with a cell of FLQ
insurgents in Québec. The communiqué was crafted in such a way that
it would elicit an angry response from the population because the
first (legitimate) communiqué was eliciting a sympathetic response.
They also set fire to a barn and blamed it on the FLQ. They were
embarassed into admitting their responsibility in these actions and
have since been subjected to complaints commission.

In 1940, the National Film Board of Canada was charged with making a
piece of propaganda which is sometimes used without knowing it's
propaganda, Hitler's famous "dance" at Versailles.

Obviously you (and many others) are prepared to believe the first
thing that fits your preconceived notions.

Dude, I really do think you're mental. YOU SNIPPED WHAT I WROTE ABOUT VIDEO
EVIDENCE POSSIBLY EXISTING -- NOT BECAUSE THE TERRORISTS "LEFT A TAPE" BUT
BECAUSE LONDON IS HIGHLY SURVEILLED.

Sea Kelp.

BS

"Bill Sornson" wrote in
:

Dude, I really do think you're mental. YOU SNIPPED WHAT I WROTE
ABOUT VIDEO EVIDENCE POSSIBLY EXISTING -- NOT BECAUSE THE
TERRORISTS "LEFT A TAPE" BUT BECAUSE LONDON IS HIGHLY SURVEILLED.

Well, perhaps I discounted it because it's not being referred to
anywhere except to say that it isn't enough. Again from the Beeb:

"[Scotland Yard Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian] Paddick denied
reports that investigators were looking "for any specific
individual".

"Prime Minister Tony Blair warned that security and surveillance will
not be enough to stop such attacks - and that there has to be an
ideological struggle in which terrorism is "pulled up by the roots".

and further:

"A claim for the attacks has been made in the name of Al-Qaeda - by a
group calling itself the Abu Hafs al-Masri brigade.

"But the BBC's security correspondent Gordon Corera has urged caution
over the credibility of the claim."

Take a very deep breath and try to regain composure. Oh, and "to
surveil" is not a verb.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

"Michel Boucher" wrote in message
...


Take a very deep breath and try to regain composure. Oh, and "to
surveil" is not a verb.



Verb or no, I laud him his balls to write it. I plan to use it.

--Yankee Viejo

"0ld Yank" same@ Isee.net wrote:

"Michel Boucher" wrote in message
2...

Take a very deep breath and try to regain composure. Oh, and "to
surveil" is not a verb.

Verb or no, I laud him his balls to write it. I plan to use it.

As well you should... Webster's thinks it's a verb, and that's good
enough for me. the listed meaning (not surprisingly) is "to place
under surveillance"

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"0ld Yank" same@ Isee.net wrote in
:

"Michel Boucher" wrote in message
...

Take a very deep breath and try to regain composure. Oh, and "to
surveil" is not a verb.

Verb or no, I laud him his balls to write it. I plan to use it.

Of course you do. No surprise there.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

"0ld Yank" same@ Isee.net wrote:

"Michel Boucher" wrote in message
42...

Take a very deep breath and try to regain composure. Oh, and "to
surveil" is not a verb.

Verb or no, I laud him his balls to write it. I plan to use it.

As well you should... Webster's thinks it's a verb, and that's good
enough for me. the listed meaning (not surprisingly) is "to place
under surveillance"

Webster's is also the dictionary that lists "neighbour" as the British
variant of "American" spelling.

--
"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot