Al-Qaeda attacks London

[Gabriel Syme]

Just to keep you up to date with news, since we all tend not to do so.

http://news.google.com.sg/news?q=attacks+in+London&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=nn&oi=newsr

Yes, it's very vague, but, it is all over the news.

~

The London undergorund has been attacked. To give a full picture, imagine the entire subway system in your city area, be it in New York, or Atalanta, severely shut down, preventing you from going from one place to another.

Worse, every bus in the area is no longer avilable.

And then, there are all the casulaties.

~

Those damn terorists have done it again.

~

This is crap. First New York, then Madrid, then Bali, now London. ANd just after the IOC in SIngapore, and right during the G8 summit.

Gentlemen, I need to remidn you that the terrorist threat remains very real up to now. With the Yishun incident just three years ago, we must remain vigilant.

~

Some newsbytes:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=ayoqcf71xcIQ&refer=germany

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/156704/1/.html

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-239/0507070805170000.htm (Btw: this is Iranian)

~

This is WAR. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4659933.stm)

[Citizen Kane]

I saw this as well. Early estimates said 40+ people were killed....besisdes that I'm really lost for words I guess.

[Gabriel Syme]

Me too Kane, me too.

~

It's just terrible, really.

[Neon Tears]

it's france.
they're pissed off because london gets to host the Olympics.
on a more serious note:
sucks that london went 'splodey, but hey, shit happens, right?
not much WE can do about it.

[töm]

what about michael bloomberg and his cronies? now there REALLY is no justifiable reason for the west-side stadium.

seriously, i think the most absurd article that i read about this was "Olympics Not To Blame, Olympics Say." i don't think anyone would assume that they were... but it remined me of an onion article published a while ago, "Bush Not Liar, Bush Says."

good luck to tony and the boys. at least it's not as bad as it could have been. for all intents and purposes, the terrorists really suck at what they do. if i were evil, i'd be disappointed in them.

[MST3Kakalina]

they've definitely linked it to Al-Qaeda?

[moose]

it's france.
they're pissed off because london gets to host the Olympics.
on a more serious note:
sucks that london went 'splodey, but hey, shit happens, right?
not much WE can do about it.
It's the french.
They already made their first attack. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161568,00.html)

[when you are the moon]

they've definitely linked it to Al-Qaeda?
Yeah, because.... they'll pretty much take the credit for anything.


This makes me so sad. :(

[Nadine]

This is awful. I am pretty fond of London; some of you may remember that I spent the summer there two years ago.

I hope that all of the injured people will be able to get help, and that the damage can be minimized.

[Lord Koopa]

Look at this flash movie that is on the frontpage of Newgrounds:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/249827

I didn't like it very much, but I can see why it was put on the frontpage. I think I'll quote my own review of it on Newgrounds.

If you had worked harder on making this something more than it is at the moment, I may consider it as a better cartoon. At the moment, it's just something that says what I already know about what happened in London. It didn't leave me very entertained, or affected emotionally. I didn't think it was very good, and I don't feel like it deserves an instant 10 just because it's based on an event that hurt so many people. I'm not saying that I don't care about what happened in London, I definitely think it's a horrible thing to happen, but that, as I've said, does not instantly make this worth more than it would be if it was about something fictional.

[Rory Storm]

It seems that they have counted the people on the bus who were so brutally killed, and have raised the count up to 37. I have been following this tragic story all day with the 20 minute exception. I must say that, under the circumstances, enjoyed Tony Blairs address. Not so much out of entertainment, but for the simple fact that he addressed the people without the usual "uh's" and "um's" of President Bush. I did see, also, Bush's TV address, and he spouted the same usual ideas of terrorism.
It is very sad to see something so absolutly stupid committed in such a wonderful place. Based on what I know about Islam is that it says in the religion that you have to live a peace filled life, and that the teaching condone such actions. I ask myself why do they do this. I know they hate our way of life. Now it seems as though they are just asking for more trouble. It has now become a war on a global front. I find it so sad that in our day there are people that are savage like this. I also find it amazing how two countries, seemingly, have come together after a bit of a feud, meaning England and France based on what was said at the Olympics Election yesterday.
My sister asked me, "why do they do this?" I told her that it is like a less violent approach to what the Christians did in the 1800's and the 1900's, their quests and crusades to convert the people of the world. They used forceful tactics, but were mostly non-violent. Any violence that did errupt from the transition came from the opposing side, the ones they were trying to convert. The difference here is that it's more of a hatred for a way of life, beliefs, and freedom. The terrorists do not want us to have freedom. This is something else that I do not understand, when you are not free, it would seem to me as though you are not happy. I know that I am happy because I can openly express my emotions. Does this give me too much power? Should I be censored? I could be, but I choose not to be. I choose to be free.
I do not think that we, as a country, could ever get rid of terrorism. We can lessen it, prevent it, but we cannot stop people from believing what they want. Having a belief system is a freedom almost everyone has. It just seems people are more willing to die for those beliefs than others.

[rocketgal]

as far as i know some al quaeda website just said "MINE!" the second they heard about it.


if they DIDNT do it....they are morons for claiming it.

if they want people to stop kicking their asses, they need to stop that.


i would be typing my age, and not my shoe size, if i wasnt so tired of trying to find out if my family are dead or alive all day

[when you are the moon]

The terrorists do not want us to have freedom.
Dude, don't buy into that line. That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. The terrorists have what are (to them) legitimate greivances regarding their treatment by certain first world countries. Maybe you should actually do some reading on these asswipes and their history instead of buying the monosyllabic, five second sound bite we hear at every turn. Especially if you look at Al Qaeda, whose leader was "on our side" until the CIA sold him out. It's not like they just sprang out of nowhere and suddenly went, "ARRRGH, AMERICA DOESN'T KEEP THEIR WOMEN IN BEEKEEPER SUITS, ME HATE!". No. They got fucked, and now they're fucking back. I'm not endorsing these fuckfaces or the opressive religious theocracy they want in place in their home countries, I'm just saying stop distilling everything down to first-grader terms. It's a lot more complicated than "WAAARGH, DEY HATE FREEDOM, AMERICA SMASH WITH FREEDOM!"


Arrrgh. Good luck, Claire. :(

[Linzoy]

Yeah, our nation was started by terrorists, they aren't all evil.

[when you are the moon]

...


what?

[töm]

patriots = insurgents


<i>occupation is never successful.</i>

[Gabriel Syme]

There's a difference.

The American Civil War started way more officially then this.

AT least there was the Boston Tea Party. You call THAT terrorist ? More like a peaceful protest to me.

ANd India ? The Salt March. ANother peaceful protest.

~

Thing is, violence answers with violence. But, if the people who want freedom and peace truly, I'd think they'd rather answer by peace first, and only violence when they have to.

[MST3Kakalina]

*American Revolution. Civil War came "four score and seven years" later. <small>god i hate american history.</small>


i would imagine Linzoy was kidding, but maybe not.

the problem is, Al-Qaeda doesn't want peace. they want the Western world out of their politics and/or destroyed. they're not going to do nice hippie things like go on hunger strikes or march to capitol steps. they're going to blow shit up.

[tass]

There's a difference.

The American Civil War started way more officially then this.

AT least there was the Boston Tea Party. You call THAT terrorist ? More like a peaceful protest to me.

ANd India ? The Salt March. ANother peaceful protest.

~

Thing is, violence answers with violence. But, if the people who want freedom and peace truly, I'd think they'd rather answer by peace first, and only violence when they have to.
but maybe that's just because of what time period we were in back then? back then there weren't many things that made a huge 'boom'. if there had been, who's to say there wouldn't have been more violent approaches?

[BlasterDRP]

patriots = insurgents

By an invalid chain of logic based on post-conclusive observations and noted facts, this would be a true statement.