More bombs?
 

Bob Wood wrote:
Real risk [1]? Or copycats who think it's "funny"?



[1] Not the best phrasing, but I cannot think of anything better at
the moment. Hopefully you know what I mean.


It's safer to presume that it is a real risk in all incidents like this.



Yes. "Sinister motives" would have been a better phrase I realise now.

PhilD

--

More bombs?
 

Simon Lane wrote:
[...]
UXB Shepherds Bush (police to R5 reporter)

Also large area around Warren Street being cleared (R5) - hmmm...

More bombs?
 

Simon Lane wrote:
Simon Lane wrote:
[...]
UXB Shepherds Bush (police to R5 reporter)

Also large area around Warren Street being cleared (R5) - hmmm...

Ah I see - R5 reporting averone being pushed 300 yds away from Oval too
- they are worried in case chemical or biological agents used...

More bombs?
 

Simon Lane wrote:
Simon Lane wrote:

Simon Lane wrote:
[...]

UXB Shepherds Bush (police to R5 reporter)

Also large area around Warren Street being cleared (R5) - hmmm...


Ah I see - R5 reporting averone being pushed 300 yds away from Oval too
- they are worried in case chemical or biological agents used...

That'll be the Australians?

More bombs?
 

My sister works in Victoria Street near Whitehall and heard what
sounded like an explosion around the time they jumped on the guy
opposite Whitehall. They don't know whether it was a controlled
explosion or not. They've now been given the all clear.

Neill

More bombs?
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:10:18 GMT someone who may be "Bob Wood"
wrote this:-

Without the injuries, we still have the massive disruption - the
desired aim!

And the explosives are saved for another day.

It is also likely that it will encourage party politicians to do
what the terrorists want, reduce our freedoms even more.

Interested to know what your solution is then? Or do we wait to you lose a
loved one before you start to think that something needs to be done.

More bombs?
 

In ,
sharky typed:

Simon Lane wrote:
Simon Lane wrote:

Simon Lane wrote:
[...]

UXB Shepherds Bush (police to R5 reporter)

Also large area around Warren Street being cleared (R5) - hmmm...


Ah I see - R5 reporting averone being pushed 300 yds away from Oval
too - they are worried in case chemical or biological agents used...

That'll be the Australians?

What? They popped down from St Johns Wood just to be part of the panic
south of the river??

--
Bob

More bombs?
 

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:57:55 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Mick"
wrote this:-

It is also likely that it will encourage party politicians to do
what the terrorists want, reduce our freedoms even more.

Interested to know what your solution is then?

Do what Mr Liar said, continue as before. Terrorists want to change
the way things are done and they are succeeding when party
politicians reduce our freedoms even more.

Or do we wait to you lose a
loved one before you start to think that something needs to be done.

Emotional arguments don't make anyone safer. What matters is the
cold hard analysis.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

More bombs?
 

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:57:55 +0000 (UTC), Mick wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:
David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:10:18 GMT someone who may be "Bob Wood"
wrote this:-

Without the injuries, we still have the massive disruption - the
desired aim!

And the explosives are saved for another day.

It is also likely that it will encourage party politicians to do
what the terrorists want, reduce our freedoms even more.

Interested to know what your solution is then? Or do we wait to you lose a
loved one before you start to think that something needs to be done.

The problem is that hard cases make bad law. I tend to disagree with
David on most things, and I think that he tends to over-egg the
pudding when making his arguments, but he does have a valid point
here.

There is, in reality, little the government can do in terms of law
which will actually protect us against terrorism, especially
'home-grown terrorism'. After all, if there was some magic law which
could deal with the problem, it would have been introduced in the
1970s during the height of the IRA campaign.

It's a bugger, innit? We'd all like to think there was a solution open
to us, but the truth is that we aren't going to get someone standing
up saying "By Golly! I have _THE_ solution to the terrorism problem!",
because there simply isn't one.


The way to deal with terrorism is for our society (not our government)
to deal with it, and that means (for example) everyone being more
security aware ALL the time and EVERYWHERE, and of course the real
biggy which is our society actually recognising that we all, every
single one of us, have a responsibility for what happens in our
country, and everyone thus must make the effort to live and work
together, with our varied cultures integrating, rather than the slow
self-segregation of elements of the community which is all too
apparent if you come to places like Lincoln, never mind cities like
Birmingham which (as a former resident) I can tell you have what are
almost self-chosen ghettoes.

Integration and the understanding which comes with it is the only
thing which will (in the very long term) stop certain members of our
youth becoming extremists, whether they be right-wing, Muslim or
whatever extreme. Without extremists, there is no terrorism.

--
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

More bombs?
 

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:42:03 +0100, Ross
wrote:

Without extremists, there is no terrorism.

A very wise statement.

May I also add to the pot the following two quotes?
1. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter[1].
2. He who gives up liberty to gain security deserves neither liberty
nor security[2].

Very relevant in the current situation, and I'll give the Government
some credit (rare, that) for *not* overreacting to either incident.

I am, however, very disappointed (but not surprised) by some of the
rubbish that is being spouted by some members of the Great British
Public, including people seriously suggesting the idea of baggage
scans on LUL and buses, and someone in this week's Milton Keynes
Citizen suggesting that ID cards would in some way have helped prevent
either of these sets of attacks.

[1] An uncomfortable truth, but one we have to understand if we're
going to get anywhere near solving the issue. There is an
unwillingness to accept that seeking to understand terrorists and
their motivation is not the same thing as supporting them,
particularly among readers of low-end gutter tabloid newspapers.

[2] Or something to that effect.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.