Explosion in London this morning

[SteveThaiBinh]

Britain is now burning with fear, terror, and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here in the eastern quarter, it's pretty quiet, thank you very much.

 

I guess we'll see if this statement is genuine or fake. Apparently this particular website (if its the same one the radio is talking about) has a history of producing fake statements.

 

If we weren't in Iraq, it would be because we took part in the first Gulf War, or because we recognise the state of Israel, or because we participate in global capitalism, or because we open our eggs at the wrong end...

[E_Motion]

Wow, sounds as bad as Christian fundamentalist evangelicalism ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I live in an area of the States with lots of so-called Christian Fundamentalists. These ppl truly amaze me. The fundamentals of the Christ I studied were, turn the other cheek; love thy neighbor; forgive, forgive, forgive; let the one with no sin cast the first stone. I keep telling myself that many religious ppl are trying to do good. But I see Billy Graham's "crusades" and wonder if he has any idea just how anti-christ the crusades were. I see a Pope living and traveling in splendor, flocked by worshipers; and I think of the Christ who refused to ride anything but a donkey...

 

And just when I am about to give up all hope, for myself and the world, a shadow of Mother Theresa flickers past my mind's eye... if only for a fleeting second.

[213374U]

No need for that kind of stuff. Things are ugly enough as they are right now. The problem with this is the same as with 11-M and 11-S. Once again, they prove they can strike anywhere, anytime. I wonder how is Mr. Blair going to react.

[Calax]

where's echelon when you need it, or the Aquinis protocol.

[Darth Flatus]

where's echelon when you need it, or the Aquinis protocol.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

what?

[kirottu]

where's echelon when you need it, or the Aquinis protocol.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

what?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Echelon is satellite network(?) that pics up dangerous words from all kinds of communication, like e-mails and stuff. Aquinis is probably something similar.

[Walsingham]

Echelon exists and is in use. Don't let anyone tell you different. Personally I'm perfectly comfy with it. Hell, Google reads my mail, why shoudn't the security services?

 

Volourn, it's good to meet you. We were getting attacked by Al Qaeda long before Iraq, and we would be even without Iraq. It is rubbish to assert a connection like it makes a difference.

 

Azarkon, I don't blame you for feeling frustrated with talking politics when people are dying, but I think we should remember that politics is usually about people dying. It's often why they die, when it isn't just an excuse. And I say again that as we mourn the dead, this number of civilians have been dying daily in Iraq for months, without half the fuss.

 

I'm away off out for a long walk and maybe a beer. Work out some of the kinks I've got from being so angry. I do so more convinced than ever that we must act together to condemn the actions of self-appointed 'heroes' who deliberately attack civilians. There are heaps of military targets in London. The Ministry of Defence is only a few hundred yards from one of the sites. They did not target the military, or the government, they targetted ordinary people.

 

Hildegard, we've discussed stuff before over Iraq and so on, pretty civilly. You mentioned the possibility of a CBRN attack, specifically a suitcase nuke. Do you REALLY believe that the people of London/Manchester/Liverpool/Droitwich deserve death and disease on that scale because we didn't act on Bosnia? Because we chose to act on Iraq?

 

My colleague's wife turned out to be fine, by the way. Nothing serious.

[213374U]

There are heaps of military targets in London. The Ministry of Defence is only a few hundred yards from one of the sites. They did not target the military, or the government, they targetted ordinary people.

I find that disturbing. Even though you probably didn't mean to imply so, that sounded like terrorist attacks on military targets are somewhat more acceptable.

 

They aren't. Soldiers and police are people too, and they don't join those organizations to get blown to pieces in cowardly attacks by raving madmen. It's not in their contract.

[Blarghagh]

There are heaps of military targets in London. The Ministry of Defence is only a few hundred yards from one of the sites. They did not target the military, or the government, they targetted ordinary people.

I find that disturbing. Even though you probably didn't mean to imply it, that sounded like terrorist attacks on military targets are somewhat more acceptable.

 

They aren't. Soldiers and police are people too, and they don't join those organizations to get blown to pieces in cowardly attacks by raving madmen. It's not in their contract.

 

Terrorist attacks are never acceptable, but a government or military of another country is more likely to cause you harm than it's ordinary citizens. Attacks on such targets could be explained away. When you attack ordinary citizens, it's just cruel. It has no plausible purpose. This is why many people perceive such an attack to be worse than one on an official target - they can't understand it.

[E_Motion]

...And I say again that as we mourn the dead, this number of civilians have been dying daily in Iraq for months, without half the fuss. ...

 

My colleague's wife turned out to be fine, by the way. Nothing serious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I meant to respond to your earlier comment. Many of us care deeply about the deaths in Iraq. And also those in the former Yugoslavia. And also those in Africa.

 

I'm happy that your friend's wife was spared physical harm. I fear though, that we all have been harmed spiritually. And I fear that if there is a dark side, it beckons loudly to all of us today.

[213374U]

Terrorist attacks are never acceptable, but a government or military of another country is more likely to cause you harm than it's ordinary citizens. Attacks on such targets could be explained away. When you attack ordinary citizens, it's just cruel. It has no plausible purpose. This is why many people perceive such an attack to be worse than one on an official target - they can't understand it.

Yes, I know the "logic" behind that reasoning. But it's still based on the wrong premise that terrorism is an acceptable tool under certain circumstances. Sorry, but it's not.

 

"When you attack ordinary citizens, it's just cruel" - Gold.

 

Right, because when you attack soldiers, it's just business.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I only fear if one day terrorist use a suit case bomb (improvised nuclear device)

 

 

 

I can give you reassurance that that will never happen. A rapport by FOI(swedish defense research center) made a rapport where the probability of any terrorist association gaining access to such weapons was zero. And before you say anything; that rapport used source info gathered by US and Brittish intelligence.

 

 

The chance of them having low-grade uranium(aka nuclear waste) is much higher but that cannot be used to maky any sort of weapon except a "dirty bomb", a weapon that requires its victim to stand still within the blast radius for aproximatly one year for them to absorb a dangerous dose of radiation " not exactly an intimidating weapon..

[jodo kast 5]

Man, all those dead , many more injured , tragedy,a real tragedy.

[213374U]

The chance of them having low-grade uranium(aka nuclear waste) is much higher but that cannot be used to maky any sort of weapon except a "dirty bomb", a weapon that requires its victim to stand still within the blast radius for aproximatly one year for them to absorb a dangerous dose of radiation " not exactly an intimidating weapon..

I thought dirty bombs could spread nuclear waste for tens of kilometres. And I also thought than a few hours in exposure was enough to ensure that your grandchildren will glow in the dark, as was the case with Chernobyl workers.

 

But then again, I've been known to be wrong before.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The chance of them having low-grade uranium(aka nuclear waste) is much higher but that cannot be used to maky any sort of weapon except a "dirty bomb", a weapon that requires its victim to stand still within the blast radius for aproximatly one year for them to absorb a dangerous dose of radiation " not exactly an intimidating weapon..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's news to me. Considering all the fuss that's made about dirty bombs, it's rather surprising. Still, to a certain kind of terrorist or activist, it has the attraction of causing economic damage (rendering an area unusable without an expensive cleanup) without major loss of life.

 

That kind of terrorist isn't the problem, though - if they truly exist at all.

[jodo kast 5]

Well didn't some dude say that the bomb had a mark or something like Al-Quaeda's bombs?

[E_Motion]

I only fear if one day terrorist use a suit case bomb (improvised nuclear device)

 

 

 

I can give you reassurance that that will never happen. A rapport by FOI(swedish defense research center) made a rapport where the probability of any terrorist association gaining access to such weapons was zero. And before you say anything; that rapport used source info gathered by US and Brittish intelligence.

 

 

The chance of them having low-grade uranium(aka nuclear waste) is much higher but that cannot be used to maky any sort of weapon except a "dirty bomb", a weapon that requires its victim to stand still within the blast radius for aproximatly one year for them to absorb a dangerous dose of radiation " not exactly an intimidating weapon..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I recommend you read "The Curve of Binding Energy" if it is still in print. It was written about an acknowledged genius who worked for the US nuclear weapons program and who is credited with miniaturizing our nuclear weapons. He wanted the book written, twenty or more years ago, because of his concerns that terrorists would build a nuclear device. He says that it is very hard to build a good one; but pretty easy to build a bad one; problem is that even a bad one could easily take out several city blocks. He took the author to nuclear refining and reprocessing facilities to see the poor security and it wasn't a pretty sight.

 

Not to raise unwarrented fears, but we must not overlook the dangers. And we should all also realize that wmds aren't the biggest danger; as is proven again and again.

 

But in my mind the real danger is when we stop caring about each other. When we come to believe that only the police and military can protect us. When we ignore the sufferings of others and unwittingly create an atmosphere that engenders a belief that our governments can't be trusted; that other ppl are bad. In free societies, we must all be prepared to look out for each other; or we must be prepared to abandon freedom.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Well didn't some dude say that the bomb had a mark or something like Al-Quaeda's bombs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What, like 'Acme'?

[Kaftan Barlast]

Well that is the "problem" with dirty bombs, they look like they could work on paper but they dont. In, fact they wont work on paper either if you do the right calculations. The material it spreads is not even close to being able to harm anyone and the area which it spreads is not large enough to cause any problem that way.

 

The only harm they could theoreticly cause was if the radioactive material wasnt cleaned up, then it might cause cancer etc. in people living in the area for lets say 15 years or more.

 

All this was found in the 50's when the idea first came but it was proven to be such an extremely uneffective weapon that it was dropped. And then we're talking precision made bombs, not a waste barrell with some explosives taped to it like the terrorists would use.

[Walsingham]

Was just logging off, and had to jump in. <curious mix of metaphors>

 

Hildegard, I know you didn't SAY that in your post. I am asking if you believe our culpability in foreign policy should involve our civilians in deliberate acts of murder. As a signatory to the Geneva convention the UK draws a distinction between civilians and combatants, and accepts that in war the latter are legitimate targets, the former are not. According to reliable reports of Islamist doctrine there is NO distinction between the two in the eyes of Al Qaeda.*

 

The British police and army have been under threat of terrorist attack at any time, even after they retire, since the start of the conflict in Northern Ireland. That is why you will rarely see a British soldier in uniform. It IS part of the job, and one they willingly face up to. Past work of mine, and simply stating my views here, would certainly make me a target for terrorist activity; and I accept that.

 

However, I am not saying that deciding one afternoon that because your grandfather lost his farm you can kill a serviceman. It is illegal, and rightly so, because without state sanction it IS murder.

 

I am sick of people making excuses for these people, and am therefore finally off to the pub.

 

 

 

 

*Al Qaeda works like a franchise, before you complain. The grapevine structure has bunches of armed fethwits feeding from a central support line of doctrine, expertise, and strategic direction.

 

P.S. The CBRN threat is perfectly credible. I spoke to the head of the UN investigation team this time last year at an open seminar. His comments are probably listed online somewhere.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Well didn't some dude say that the bomb had a mark or something like Al-Quaeda's bombs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What, like 'Acme'?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Property of Osama Bin Laden.

[213374U]

The British police and army have been under threat of terrorist attack at any time, even after they retire, since the start of the conflict in Northern Ireland. That is why you will rarely see a British soldier in uniform. It IS part of the job, and one they willingly face up to. Past work of mine, and simply stating my views here, would certainly make me a target for terrorist activity; and I accept that.

 

However, I am not saying that deciding one afternoon that because your grandfather lost his farm you can kill a serviceman. It is illegal, and rightly so, because without state sanction it IS murder.

I know that wearing a uniform makes you a more likely target. It doesn't make it any more acceptable, though. That was my only point.

[E_Motion]

Well that is the "problem" with dirty bombs, they look like they could work on paper but they dont. In, fact they wont work on paper either if you do the right calculations. The material it spreads is not even close to being able to harm anyone and the area which it spreads is not large enough to cause any problem that way.

 

The only harm they could theoreticly cause was if the radioactive material wasnt cleaned up, then it might cause cancer etc. in people living in the area for lets say 15 years or more.

 

All this was found in the 50's when the idea first came but it was proven to be such an extremely uneffective weapon that it was dropped. And then we're talking precision made bombs, not a waste barrell with some explosives taped to it like the terrorists would use.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think there's a problem with terminology. In weapons terminology, a non-efficient device can be called a "dirty" device because it doesn't efficiently convert the radioactive material to energy but spreads radioactive material over a wide area. In terrorism terminology, an explosive device, nuclear or non-nuclear, wrapped with radioactive material is the fear.

 

I can assure you that the danger is real either way. Yes, it can be cleaned up but the radioactive poisoning of ppl exposed can't be cured.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I think there's a problem with terminology. In weapons terminology, a non-efficient device can be called a "dirty" device because it doesn't efficiently convert the radioactive material to energy but spreads radioactive material over a wide area. In terrorism terminology, an explosive device, nuclear or non-nuclear, wrapped with radioactive material is the fear.

 

I can assure you that the danger is real either way.  Yes, it can be cleaned up but the radioactive poisoning of ppl exposed can't be cured.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is a world of differences between having one and getting it to some sort of location. I do know of one way. But I'm not going to share just in case.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I can assure you that the danger is real either way.  Yes, it can be cleaned up but the radioactive poisoning of ppl exposed can't be cured.

 

 

Did you neglect to read that part that said calculations clearly show that a person would have to stand absolutely still within the untouched blast radious for one year in order to suffer a "fairly high" dosage.

 

 

 

Actually Osama said that he has WMD's, now is that true or not remines questionable.

 

 

Its more than questionable, its downright ludicrous. The same can be said about it being possible to aquire old soviet nuclear weapons.