Bomb in London

Remove all ads!

I think I've finally heard from all the people in London who I had to check up with. I think everyone I know and used to work with is OK and they're starting to get back on with things. But I understand there are still a few New Zealanders who are still unaccounted for in London, which is a worry for their families on the other side of the world.

 

Well I do think that the WTC attacks were more unexpected than the attack in London which explains a lot of the hysteria, not to mention the fact that it was much larger in size and that Americans were not used to such attacks. Anyway I don't think the Americans were excessively hysterical about the terrorist attack considering its proportions.

 

Actually, I remember more a sense of shock. I did not go up to New until about 2 weeks later. Manhattan was very quiet. People were going about their business. There were a lot of police around but I saw no hysteria. Any 'hysteria' did not come from New Yorkers or the tri-state area. Except maybe in a rare instance.

I did startle the manager of my gas station when I asked if he was Turkish. He was fine as soon as I explained that I wanted to find a store where I could get some food I wanted.

Britain is famous for its 'stiff upper lip' attitude and is holding up well.

/me curtsies in the direction of my cousins

edit: spelling

[ July 11, 2005, 00:46: Message edited by: Nakia Nightshadow ]

 

I do still remember the direct aftermath of 911, like probably everyone else here. And yes, I do remember that period of calm right after as well.

My point is that Britain and London especially has had the unfortunate and questionable privilege of having been target of terrorist attacks before. Terrorism as a phenomenon is not entirely new to Europe.

To America it was. I think that's the important difference.

At a time when Bin Laden's goons planned to attack the U.S. the neo-cons were occupied lobbying for a missile shield and killing the ABM treaty. Terrorism was something taking place exclusively overseas, and not perceived as an imminent threat - not by the politicos and not by the citizens.

The first WTC attack was not perceived as the wake up call.

 

My 2 cents worth: I think the news media hypes anything like this up to be much more than it is for the people who are actually there. 24 hour a day news coverage with all sorts of 'breaking updates' makes it all seem like the end of the world. I think that for the people who are actually there, if they did not watch the news, they would have no idea that rest of the world was watching so intently. If you are there, you have no choice but to just carry on. I've been speaking to friends in London and, whilst of course it is a terrible tragic incident, they were surprised at what a big deal we were all making of it overseas.

 

I don't believe the two incidents are comparable. While both are a tragedies certainly -- you're comparing damage done to underground train terminals with 50 dead, to 2 huge skyscrapers toppling to the ground with thousands dead. It's like comparing apples and oranges on the damage scale. ( I don't much like comparing them that way....but it's the facts.)

 

I've lost track of what we are even arguing about here. Not sure why we are even trying to compare the World Trade Centre collapse with last week's terrorist bombings in London.

 

It was triggered by Rags comment about the "perceived" difference in incident response between the two tragedies.

 

Harbourboy has a point about the media. Which would get CNN more ratings? The US bombing the **** out of Syria or a bunch of English people getting on with their daily lives?

I think there's a good point between Spellbound and Ragusa somewhere. I might not be able to express it well, but here goes.

Ragusa thinks the British are handling this better than the US. There's some truth. After 9/11, the US was at a standstill longer than the city of London after this atack, but Spellbound also has a point that 9/11 was much more horrific than the recent terrorist strikes. Ragusa also points out that the British aren't looking for someone to bomb the hell out of like the Americans were. Perhaps they are more gracious in their suffering, or maybe they're sick of seeing people getting bombed, or even that they know that bombing other countries does nothing to solve the situation.

The US, after they got past the shock of 9/11, were out to prove that nobody gets away with an attrocity like that. Last week's tragedies in London prove that the Al Queda did get away with 9/11. And they'll probably get away with last weeks attacks too...

 

There's also quite a few years in between the two attacks. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

I think the Brits will become more aggressive after this attack. How could they not?

Probably increase their intelligence efforts...which basically means break laws if I am not mistaken.

 

Why would we? We didn't suddenly 'do an America' and carpet bomb ROI after the IRA terrorist attacks.
The best way to answer terrorists is to go about your business like nothing ever happened as soon as possible. A reaction is the whole point of the exercise for these crazies.

 

Barmy, excellent point. If only few guys in Israel and USA have the same attitude...sigh...

 

Why would the British get more aggressive?

Because Barmy, people are getting tired of extremists Muslums puting bombs in their public spaces.

They have been doing this for years you realize...

 

And what will aggression do? Killing innocents and throwing your power around like a school-yard bully?
Incite more attacks, that's what.

There's not really any counter measures you can take against someone willing to kill themselves for a cause. Just try not to incite their hatred is the best thing...

 

Well, just off the top of my head...you could kill them and their associates...

Took me about half a second to think of that solution...

 

Ah right, yeah. Silly me...

 

So Barmy...

We should all run and hide, lest we incure their hatred? They hate us for what we ARE -- infidels. Last I knew, most people weren't rushing off to a nearby mosque to embrace Islam -- British OR American.

 

Barmy, we don't have to DO anything to incite their hatred, they hate simply because we exist. I suppose you could analyze history and come up with specific points that shaped this attitude, but that would be a useless academic exercise. What matters in the present is that it's not possible for us to STOP the hatred. I have a feeling that even if the Western world converted to Islam tomorrow, we wouldn't be Islamic "enough" and then they'd hate us for that.

 

It's not about running and hiding. It's about at least trying our best not to invade their countries and kill innocent people.
Reacting the way the US has will only bring more hatred, can't you see that? You can't bully countries into doing what you like and throw your weight around.
People who hate, will breed children who hjate and the spiral continues.

I'll say it again. There's no way of effectively stopping them bombing places if they really want to do it. It's impossible.

I also find you saying 'They hate us for being infidels' naive and a bit insulting. They hate because they have seen their family and friends murdered for the sake of frabricated reasons, poorly disguising greed. Or, they have beem brainwashed into believing they are going to a better place by blowing themselves to kingdom come. But again, there's nothing you can do to stop them, really.