Timing of the London Bombings ?

[Westy]

First of all, I only start this post as a continuance of the initial post for those who felt the discussion on that thread was out of line and insulting to the victims of this attack. I read all 13 pages, and I feel what was being said was informative and important. Of course it resulted in one banishment, almost a second, and CC got ravaged, but OT goes on.

What was the purpose of this bombing? Other than wacko extremists carrying on as they do, the Jihadists usually have a significance to these large scale attacks. IE 9/11 was numerological planned attack. Spain was a politically (Election) sabatoage.

What is going on in Europe that would / could instigate such an attack? Does G8 come into play? Is this just a randomly planned attack? I just don't accept this as "OK guys, today we bomb the Englanders because they're close and we hide real well in a heavily populated city." I don't know, maybe I'm just dummer than I think, but I do think, and I think there has to be some significance to this. JMO

[CarreraS2]

Originally posted by Westy
maybe I'm just dummer than I think

Hmm, maybe!

[cool_chick]

I think it was planned to coincide with G8 Summit, when the world leaders would be gathered in one place....a sick message of sorts.

Now, the G8 and what it set to accomplish is now pushed to the background. I hope they get back on track and take inspiration from fellow Londoners and do not allow these awful people to "win" by deterring us from everything we believe in and these leaders continue on with the summit.

[vash]

i didnt post on the other thread. when crap like this happens, i immediately try to rationalize the situation. i end up going in circle in my mind because it doesnt even make sense. why piss off the rest of the world? i think crazed insanity comes into play.

if something like that happened in the US, it would cripple this country. my lovely girlfriend rides BART twice a day. and part of that tunnel goes under the bay. i dont even want to think about it.

[bryanthompson]

crazed insanity and blind hatred... they can't be rationalized or reasoned with. Can anyone name one time when 'negotiations' with a terrorist lead to long-term peace?

I think their only criterion (criteria?) for timing are:
- when is it the most visible and/or destructive
- when will they (the terrorists) be prepared
- when is the target the weakest

[techweenie]

Don't know if I agree with the underlying premise of post #1.

It seems to me that in debriefing Moussaui and/or others, it was determined that the 9/11 attacks may have originally been scheduled for the week before.

The London attacks were different, in that they didn't involve suicide bombers, nor, apparently, much risk to the perps. So timing was more precise. As CC says, the G8 was probably the focal point.

London is full of monitoring cameras, so the possibility of identifying and catching these scumbags is probably pretty good.

Many US transit systems had more visible security presence yesterday, but I find it troubling that we're still only clearing about 3% of all containders entering our ports... that still seems to me to be the US' biggest vulnerability.

[speeder]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
crazed insanity and blind hatred... they can't be rationalized or reasoned with. Can anyone name one time when 'negotiations' with a terrorist lead to long-term peace?

I think that this is a dangerous level of ignorance. What do you call it, "Fail to know thy enemy and win" (?)

One does not have to be a terrorist sympathiser in order to understand the motivations and timing behind specific attacks, in fact this info is a vital part of counter-terrorism. Writing them off as insane, (they are not), or blind, (wrong again), might play well in the truck stop in Nebraska but it doesn't really add anything to an intelligent discussion of fighting terrorism.

Organized terrorist groups that carry out coordinated attacks like 9/11, Madrid or London are large scale criminal enterprises, (cleverly decentralised in order to make investigating and destroying them next to impossible), with very specific goals. The widespread misunderstanding of what their goals are leads to ignorant statements to the effect that "they never accomplish what they set out to change", or your "negotiations" remark. Their goal is to terrorize and various terrorists have been hugely successful at it, (the bastards), and they have absolutely changed the world that we live in to one that is not better, that's for sure. Massive economic impact, wars and a measurable (huge) increase in the cost of oil spring to mind just from one attack. Not a bad ROI for a few thousand dollars and 19 lost lives on their side, wouldn't you agree? They even used our planes and buildings. Not the work of insane people, who would be babbling on a street corner somewhere about destroying America, but rather the work of pretty sophisticated and extremely murderous groups of people. I personally believe that it is better to understand these dangerous individuals as much as possible, and I would bet that the FBI, CIA and Naval intelligence agree.

There is no disagreement among civilized people about the need to prevent terrorism, only which methods are most effective. Rednecks yodeling and beating their chests while exclaiming that we should "turn the ME into glass" always looks like an AQ recruiting film to me, believe me, they could not be more pleased with this (predictable) response.

[speeder]

And I have yet to hear even the smelliest hippie propose that we "negotiate" with any terrorists. WTF do you dittoheads get this *****? Wait, I might have just answered my own question.

[Moneyguy1]

speeder:

How right you are. To underestimate an enemy has lost many a battle.

[Westy]

Except for one thing, speeder. To strap bombs around you body and blow yourself up because you think you're going to an orgy in paradise,,,,,hmmmm, yup, that qualifies as "insane"!

[dd74]

Originally posted by speeder
I think that this is a dangerous level of ignorance. What do you call it, "Fail to know thy enemy and win" (?)

One does not have to be a terrorist sympathiser in order to understand the motivations and timing behind specific attacks, in fact this info is a vital part of counter-terrorism. Writing them off as insane, (they are not), or blind, (wrong again), might play well in the truck stop in Nebraska but it doesn't really add anything to an intelligent discussion of fighting terrorism.

Organized terrorist groups that carry out coordinated attacks like 9/11, Madrid or London are large scale criminal enterprises, (cleverly decentralised in order to make investigating and destroying them next to impossible), with very specific goals. The widespread misunderstanding of what their goals are leads to ignorant statements to the effect that "they never accomplish what they set out to change", or your "negotiations" remark. Their goal is to terrorize and various terrorists have been hugely successful at it, (the bastards), and they have absolutely changed the world that we live in to one that is not better, that's for sure. Massive economic impact, wars and a measurable (huge) increase in the cost of oil spring to mind just from one attack. Not a bad ROI for a few thousand dollars and 19 lost lives on their side, wouldn't you agree? They even used our planes and buildings. Not the work of insane people, who would be babbling on a street corner somewhere about destroying America, but rather the work of pretty sophisticated and extremely murderous groups of people. I personally believe that it is better to understand these dangerous individuals as much as possible, and I would bet that the FBI, CIA and Naval intelligence agree.

There is no disagreement among civilized people about the need to prevent terrorism, only which methods are most effective. Rednecks yodeling and beating their chests while exclaiming that we should "turn the ME into glass" always looks like an AQ recruiting film to me, believe me, they could not be more pleased with this (predictable) response.

In response to suicide bombers, terrorist groups, etc., there is little to no difference between negotiation and capitulation. Trying to come to a level of understanding with fanatics is a futile exercise.

[speeder]

Originally posted by dd74
In response to suicide bombers, terrorist groups, etc., there is little to no difference between negotiation and capitulation. Trying to come to a level of understanding with fanatics is a futile exercise.

I disagree that ignorance is the best policy.

[speeder]

Originally posted by Westy
Except for one thing, speeder. To strap bombs around you body and blow yourself up because you think you're going to an orgy in paradise,,,,,hmmmm, yup, that qualifies as "insane"!

Than you must agree that virtually all religious belief is "insane". None of it passes any wildly imaginable test of logic. If my dog was fluent in English, he would shake his head in disbelief as you explained Christianity to him.

[techweenie]

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
- Sun Tzu

[bryanthompson]

Are you trying to explain why dems can't win an election, tech?

[speeder]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
Are you trying to explain why dems can't win an election, tech?

Damn good comeback, my boy!

The only problem is that it applies equally to both sides, (at different times).

[techweenie]

The Dems have won plenty of elections, young grasshopper.

[dd74]

Originally posted by speeder
I disagree that ignorance is the best policy.

The only ignorance that exists is the thought that militant groups can be negotiated with, particularly if they are as disarrayed as Al Qaeda is right now. That is ignorance. The thought you can negotiate with an entity that has many heads is ignorant. It is also unrealistic.

Example: who bombed London yesterday? Or rather what part of Al Quaeda bombed London yesterday?

[Z-man]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
crazed insanity and blind hatred... they can't be rationalized or reasoned with. Can anyone name one time when 'negotiations' with a terrorist lead to long-term peace?

I think their only criterion (criteria?) for timing are:
- when is it the most visible and/or destructive
- when will they (the terrorists) be prepared
- when is the target the weakest

To that list I would also add:
- the timing depends on when the risk of being caught is minimal, and the impact is maximized.

IMHO: The date for the 9-11 attacks was not based on a 'cosmic number,' it was based on maximizing the efforts of the terrorists, and minimizing the chance of failure. 9-11 was on a Tuesday, which is the day the least amount of people fly. Less people on the airplane equates to less people challenging the terrorists. The vacation season was also over - so again, less folks on the planes.

As for the London and Spain bombings -- I do believe the London bombings conicide with the G8 Summit. And the Spain bombings were related to their elections. But both of those attacks were lower in magnitude. Still tragic, but not as large a scale an attack. The smaller the act of terror, the more flexible the terrorists can be.

As for the attacks in the Pacific rim that followed the 9-11 attacks, I am unsure where to place them in terms of timing.

My $0.42,
-Z.

[techweenie]

Who brought up 'negotiations?'