there was also a bombscare in kings heath (bham) the other day, a fair bit of the high street was cordonded off.
And ive heard about one in stourbridge too
And ive heard about one in stourbridge too
London attacks - what's going on???
- Thread starter Ben Frain
- Start date
I´m a police officer in the city and I was at work at the time of the bombs. I was involved in some of the aftermath of the Liverpool St/Aldgate bomb as I am based in Bishopsgate.
I hope that nobody reading this has suffered any personal tragedy as the numer of fatalities is about 52 at the moment.
I would like to take a moment to point out how utterly unhelpful and narrow-minded the comments made by charlie11 are. Basing your comments on little or no fact is deeply disrespectful so soon after the event.
The people who have committed or support such evil criminal acts deserve everything they have coming. However using it as a means to generalise and support racist xenophobic bullsh*t is out of order.
I hope that nobody reading this has suffered any personal tragedy as the numer of fatalities is about 52 at the moment.
I would like to take a moment to point out how utterly unhelpful and narrow-minded the comments made by charlie11 are. Basing your comments on little or no fact is deeply disrespectful so soon after the event.
The people who have committed or support such evil criminal acts deserve everything they have coming. However using it as a means to generalise and support racist xenophobic bullsh*t is out of order.
no..think 4 a sec
Chances are that the people responsible for this have a UK passport, or a permit for UK residence at the very least.
All the extremists caught in Holland last year, after killing writer/film director Theo van Gogh had a Duth passport.
Most of the people that flew the jets into the twin towers had green cards as well.
Most of the people that come to Europe seeking asylum deserve our pity if nothing else. You'd sing a different tune if you had to walk a mile in their shoes.
How soon we forget. Just 60 years ago Europeans were in the position that a lot of the asylum seekers are in now. A land devastated by war, tyranical governments with little qualms about using human life as poker chips...
Sure, there are those who take the piss, but the vast majority of these people do not risk life and limb just make a few bucks more. They risk life and limb because they will surely lose life and/or limb if they stay where they are.
You might want to get your facts straight.
Chances are that the people responsible for this have a UK passport, or a permit for UK residence at the very least.
All the extremists caught in Holland last year, after killing writer/film director Theo van Gogh had a Duth passport.
Most of the people that flew the jets into the twin towers had green cards as well.
Most of the people that come to Europe seeking asylum deserve our pity if nothing else. You'd sing a different tune if you had to walk a mile in their shoes.
How soon we forget. Just 60 years ago Europeans were in the position that a lot of the asylum seekers are in now. A land devastated by war, tyranical governments with little qualms about using human life as poker chips...
Sure, there are those who take the piss, but the vast majority of these people do not risk life and limb just make a few bucks more. They risk life and limb because they will surely lose life and/or limb if they stay where they are.
Just as a side note, what is a terrorist?
According to Uncle Adolf, all jews were terrorists, including babies...
Comparing what Mandela did to what these characters did is perverted. Mandela did what he did (and I know what he did) in his own country, with the support of his people, in an attempt to be free. That can hardly be said of these guys, now can it? Although I am sure they will call themselves freedom fighters...
in reference to skeet saying all known terrorists in this country should be shot - here's an interesting point. The SAS over the past 30 years has had tabs on all the major players within the IRA and UDA as well as many other terrorist organisations.
The reason they didn't touch them? why make a martyr? for everyone they killed another ten would rise in their place. its the same within any terrorist organisation. If bin laden was captured and senteced to death another ten like him would rise up...
The reason they didn't touch them? why make a martyr? for everyone they killed another ten would rise in their place. its the same within any terrorist organisation. If bin laden was captured and senteced to death another ten like him would rise up...
My standpoint is from a UK resident, or at least a westerner.
Mr Hitler, was a very, very clever man...wasn't aware he thought Jew's etc were Terrorists...I thought he believed them, along with people with disabilities, to be inferior and a threat to the Gene pool, hence wanted to wipe them out...
I am not particlulatily conversant, with Mr Mandela's activities...I am aware, that he was responsible, for some acts of aggression, which could possibly be viewed by some (mainly those whom he fought aginst I would think), as Terror Tactics.
However, I imagine, as you said, that he had a very good reason for doing these things, and as such, is a respected man today.
There is obviously a difference between his actions and those of, for example, Pol Pot (sp?)..who, also was a bit objectionable and nobody respects him for it!!
I dont think, I was compareing Mr Mandella, to those responsible for London's events, merely replying to another post...I think!
Mr Hitler, was a very, very clever man...wasn't aware he thought Jew's etc were Terrorists...I thought he believed them, along with people with disabilities, to be inferior and a threat to the Gene pool, hence wanted to wipe them out...
I am not particlulatily conversant, with Mr Mandela's activities...I am aware, that he was responsible, for some acts of aggression, which could possibly be viewed by some (mainly those whom he fought aginst I would think), as Terror Tactics.
However, I imagine, as you said, that he had a very good reason for doing these things, and as such, is a respected man today.
There is obviously a difference between his actions and those of, for example, Pol Pot (sp?)..who, also was a bit objectionable and nobody respects him for it!!
I dont think, I was compareing Mr Mandella, to those responsible for London's events, merely replying to another post...I think!
God...I'm getting jumped on from all angles here!!
I did say, that "they know who they are".
Yes, what you say is correct...but it is just frustrating, to think...that they can get away with such things and still mince about in public, without a care in the world...
It is probably just that sense of empowerment, that helps them do these things...What do they need to be afraid of? They can blow up a car, in a street full of people, and just carry on, knowing full well, we know who did it.
I just feel, that they would be less confident, if they thought that they might go out for fags, and get their head shot off.
Terrorist or freedom fighter/patriot? Mostly depends on what direction you're coming from doesn't it!
Committing acts of "terrorism" in a country that has nothing to do with your current dispute (e.g. detonating a bomb in Holland when you're dispute is with the US, nowhere near the US embassy) MUST, IMHO, be considered terrorism. But everything after that can be justified by the people carrying the act out, and there are many different factors that need to be taken into consideration.
Should whether innocent people are involved be one of the criteria? Well, if you are at all-out war with another country, it's just not practical to avoid all damage of that kind.
How about when one country has invaded another? Seems clear cut at first, but then you have to ask why the country invaded in the first place.
How about when trying to get rid of an extreme military dictatorship in your own country?
What about situations like North vs Republic of Ireland? Many people don't know or forget that a vote was taken as to whether the Irish wanted to be part of the UK and the split was made on the results of that vote.
To overthrow an unfair government? Define "unfair", and from who's point of view.
To get rid of a "foreign" government in your country? Define "foreign"! Surely this one might depend on how long the government has been in place and if so whether they could be considered indigenent.
Are the "terrorists" really working for the greater good of everyone in the country, or just their own minority interests? An awful lots of "freedom fighters" would replace the current government they are trying to overthrow with something just as oppressive, only more aligned with their own interests (see Zimbabwe as a good example here).
So many variables - I've only listed the few that came to mind right away and there are plenty more. But food for thought for some here.
Committing acts of "terrorism" in a country that has nothing to do with your current dispute (e.g. detonating a bomb in Holland when you're dispute is with the US, nowhere near the US embassy) MUST, IMHO, be considered terrorism. But everything after that can be justified by the people carrying the act out, and there are many different factors that need to be taken into consideration.
Should whether innocent people are involved be one of the criteria? Well, if you are at all-out war with another country, it's just not practical to avoid all damage of that kind.
How about when one country has invaded another? Seems clear cut at first, but then you have to ask why the country invaded in the first place.
How about when trying to get rid of an extreme military dictatorship in your own country?
What about situations like North vs Republic of Ireland? Many people don't know or forget that a vote was taken as to whether the Irish wanted to be part of the UK and the split was made on the results of that vote.
To overthrow an unfair government? Define "unfair", and from who's point of view.
To get rid of a "foreign" government in your country? Define "foreign"! Surely this one might depend on how long the government has been in place and if so whether they could be considered indigenent.
Are the "terrorists" really working for the greater good of everyone in the country, or just their own minority interests? An awful lots of "freedom fighters" would replace the current government they are trying to overthrow with something just as oppressive, only more aligned with their own interests (see Zimbabwe as a good example here).
So many variables - I've only listed the few that came to mind right away and there are plenty more. But food for thought for some here.
Hmm.
I'm not sure I agree that last thursday's attrocities count towards the liberal idea of 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter'. Your right Liz, there are many variables in trying to justify a such a broad view, but I think you may be over complicating it in regards to this situation.
there is no justification for waging war on inocent, or oblivious civilians, regardless of race, colour, creed or location. It is cowardly in the extreme and these people should be ashamed of what they have done. Hunt them down? yes, hold them to trial, yes. Rest assured, than unless they were, or are to be suicide bombers, they will be caught, and punished.
terroisism is a last resort - for the historical figures that have been qouted as 'for the greater good' Mandela, Gerry Adams, hell - you could even use George Washington, etc- well at least they tried to have diplomatic dialogue to back up thier actions. The mass murdering dictators - Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mladic (sp) do not fall into this category, as they allowed no rebutal from their victims/ population. As far as I'm aware, all AQ have ever done is hit and run, with an ambigous statement posted over the anonymous internet. If they at least had the balls to stand up and argue thier point first - --- instead they choose a cowards way, and as such earn nothing but my contempt.
But what people cannot do, is tar an enitre group, community, or ethnic minorotiy with the acts of a few. Mario hit in on the head with the Martyrdoom thing.(although I would allude to the reason as to why the SAS didnt touch the IRA was not for this reason, but rather a question of legality), in that revenge merely breeds revenge.
My thoughts to the poor vitims of such an ungodly act.
I'm not sure I agree that last thursday's attrocities count towards the liberal idea of 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter'. Your right Liz, there are many variables in trying to justify a such a broad view, but I think you may be over complicating it in regards to this situation.
there is no justification for waging war on inocent, or oblivious civilians, regardless of race, colour, creed or location. It is cowardly in the extreme and these people should be ashamed of what they have done. Hunt them down? yes, hold them to trial, yes. Rest assured, than unless they were, or are to be suicide bombers, they will be caught, and punished.
terroisism is a last resort - for the historical figures that have been qouted as 'for the greater good' Mandela, Gerry Adams, hell - you could even use George Washington, etc- well at least they tried to have diplomatic dialogue to back up thier actions. The mass murdering dictators - Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mladic (sp) do not fall into this category, as they allowed no rebutal from their victims/ population. As far as I'm aware, all AQ have ever done is hit and run, with an ambigous statement posted over the anonymous internet. If they at least had the balls to stand up and argue thier point first - --- instead they choose a cowards way, and as such earn nothing but my contempt.
But what people cannot do, is tar an enitre group, community, or ethnic minorotiy with the acts of a few. Mario hit in on the head with the Martyrdoom thing.(although I would allude to the reason as to why the SAS didnt touch the IRA was not for this reason, but rather a question of legality), in that revenge merely breeds revenge.
My thoughts to the poor vitims of such an ungodly act.
Sorry Pestilence - I realise now I didn't make it clear I was generalising and playing Devil's Advocate. I will now state categorically that in no way at all can I justify last Thursday's attacks, nor would I want to. Even the IRA used to give warnings!
I worked in central London through the worst days of the old IRA bombings, including having my office wrecked when they ended the cease fire at South Quay in Docklands, and being on the train that caught the brunt of the London Bridge bomb many years earlier. I DO therefore have some very strong views on terrorists! However, a few of the terrorists justify themselves in the name of religion and therefore tar everybody of that religion with the same brush and you end up with death threats and violence against, in this case, Muslims (who's religion I should point out condemns acts of violence against innocent civilians). If you follow that path, the majority of people in England should have been attacking Catholics, as the IRA tried to drag that into the Northern Ireland issue. And as someone who belongs to a minority religion which has been persecuted over the ages, you can see why I'm very much against religious bias!
I think that I was just trying to get everyone to look at all the possible angles, maybe not for this particular incident but in general. There have been a few rather strong comments earlier on this thread that started to smack of racial or religious bias and I hoped I could make some people realise that it's not always black & white (if you excuse the expression!). Even when right is on the side of the "terrorists", "freedom fighters" or whatever name is used, that doesn't automatically justify the means - an example here being black activists in the old aparteid South Africa using "necklaces" (tyres placed around people's necks and set alight) on other blacks they felt were acting against them. Was their cause right? Yes, imho. Were their actions justified? A resounding no, again imho.
I worked in central London through the worst days of the old IRA bombings, including having my office wrecked when they ended the cease fire at South Quay in Docklands, and being on the train that caught the brunt of the London Bridge bomb many years earlier. I DO therefore have some very strong views on terrorists! However, a few of the terrorists justify themselves in the name of religion and therefore tar everybody of that religion with the same brush and you end up with death threats and violence against, in this case, Muslims (who's religion I should point out condemns acts of violence against innocent civilians). If you follow that path, the majority of people in England should have been attacking Catholics, as the IRA tried to drag that into the Northern Ireland issue. And as someone who belongs to a minority religion which has been persecuted over the ages, you can see why I'm very much against religious bias!
I think that I was just trying to get everyone to look at all the possible angles, maybe not for this particular incident but in general. There have been a few rather strong comments earlier on this thread that started to smack of racial or religious bias and I hoped I could make some people realise that it's not always black & white (if you excuse the expression!). Even when right is on the side of the "terrorists", "freedom fighters" or whatever name is used, that doesn't automatically justify the means - an example here being black activists in the old aparteid South Africa using "necklaces" (tyres placed around people's necks and set alight) on other blacks they felt were acting against them. Was their cause right? Yes, imho. Were their actions justified? A resounding no, again imho.