Talk about the blasts in London.. because the media sure seem confused! (48)

1 Name: Unverified Source 2005-07-07 12:17 ID:Heaven

Well at 8:49am this morning a whole lot of explosions ripped up some trains and a bus in London, middle of the morning rush. How many dead? Well... at the current point in time the media seem quite confused at the total amount of injured, deceased and just how much damage has occured. Some agencies are reporting that a terrorist group has admitted to the attack etc.

So tell us what happened, what is your local media saying, and throw us some news articles (we could do with some to try and find the real figures amoungst all this mess):
http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&ned=us&ncl=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news%3Fpid%3D10000100%26sid%3DaKO6AeyWinuo%26refer%3Dgermany&hl=en
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4659093.stm

2 Name: bubu 2005-07-07 12:34 ID:Heaven

Radio b92 wanted to play it safe and spoke of "many blasts ripping through london, causing many deaths and many, many more injured", cleverly avoiding any clear figures.

RTR played soothing piano music and slomenly reported that "eight blasts" had shattered London "injuring many and killing two, failing to cause the gigantic catastrophe some had suggested".

ANSA states that the number of victims remains unclear but amounts to "about ten or more".
http://www.ansa.it/main/notizie/fdg/200507071417205612/200507071417205612.html

3 Name: bubu 2005-07-07 12:41 ID:Heaven

http://derstandard.at/?id=2103979
185 injured, at least 10 casualties in King's Cross

4 Name: 2005-07-07 12:43 ID:Heaven

>>3

Casualties or fatalities ?

5 Name: bubu 2005-07-07 12:52 ID:Heaven

http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/050707124316.abdabdht.html
'Al-Qaeda' group claims London attacks, threatens others

>>4
I thought the two words were largely synonymous? (Times Eng Dict: casualty: "a person who is injured or killed in an accident"; AHD: "One injured or killed in an accident"). In any case, they are dead.

6 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2005-07-07 12:56 ID:rJeGFOhA

http://www.flickr.com/groups/74918957@N00/pool/

Cam-phone photos of London events.

8 Name: bubu 2005-07-07 13:46 ID:Heaven

Reuters:
http://tinyurl.com/bnp4d
"At least 45 people were killed and 1,000 wounded in four blasts that ripped through London's transport network at rush hour on Thursday, Sky TV said."

9 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-07-07 13:59 ID:kkMQtQoy

BBC
"At least two people have been killed"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4659093.stm

10 Name: Unverified Source 2005-07-07 14:59 ID:P5tmbLWK

CNN: 33 dead confirmed

11 Name: Unverified Source 2005-07-07 16:00 ID:Zbr/lbDQ

Inshallah, my droogs. Inshallah!

12 Name: Unverified Source 2005-07-07 16:02 ID:Heaven

> LONDON, England (CNN) -- A previously unknown group calling itself the "Secret Organization group al Qaeda Organization in Europe" released a statement Thursday claiming responsibility for the subway and bus bombings in London earlier in the day.
> CNN could not confirm the authenticity of the statement, which was posted on a Web site connected to Islamic radicals.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/explosions.claim/index.html

Any ideas of the motherfucking URL of that "Web site connected to Islam radicals"? Bunch of bullshit journalism that's online but fails to link to online sources.

13 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2005-07-07 16:25 ID:Dxe9CrYT

>>12

Give them a break, they're still struggling to understand the concept of images on webpages.

14 Name: bubu 2005-07-07 16:33 ID:Heaven

>>12
The name of the site is al-Qala'a.
Just go to Elaph, they have the letter and a screenshot of the originating site.

15 Name: Unverified Source 2005-07-07 17:16 ID:Heaven

>>14

Why don't you hyperlink me, bitch?

16 Name: bubu 2005-07-07 17:57 ID:Heaven

17 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-07-07 18:15 ID:kkMQtQoy

That announcement sounds fishy.
Because the "Al Qaeda" name was used because the Congress didn't want to sign if the enemy didn't have a proper name, IIRC. No muslim group would call itself "Al Qaeda".
And also, what the West calls "Al Qaeda" uses other websites that that one when they make a statement. This is not one of the regulars.

18 Name: 15 2005-07-07 18:36 ID:Heaven

>>16

I'm just lazy

19 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2005-07-07 19:14 ID:Dxe9CrYT

I just clicked on the headline Notorious group claims responsibility for London attacks on Google News, and got an article with the headline "Phony reports link Al Qaeda group to London attacks*.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=8925

20 Name: Unverified Source 2005-07-07 20:34 ID:Heaven

>>16
is that site working or is it blocked for me?

21 Name: bubu 2005-07-07 20:36 ID:Heaven

>>20
it's been timing out for some hours now. It's not just you.

22 Name: Freak of Nature 2005-07-07 20:44 ID:/3XIhPfO

>>19
Interesting that, as the al-Jazeera article points out, the supposed al-Qaeda message contains errors in the Qu'ranic verses quoted. I would agree that this seems like something al-Qaeda wouldn't do.

That's not to say that al-Qaeda weren't connected to this, but the supposed claim of responsibility should be taken cum grano salis.

Related to this... I heard an interview with a British intelligence officer who made a remark that I found surprising, and which the interviewer, oddly enough, didn't pursue. He said that al-Qaeda had ceased to be a strong threat as a result of the post-9/11 events, and that many of the activities usually attributed to the group were actually the work of what, according to him, the intelligence community called "green shoots", autonomous groups emulating al-Qaeda and acting in their name.

Now, all this al-Qaeda talk aside, there are a number of alternate scenarios that fit the facts just as well. One of them (though I don't ascribe any particular credibility to this) is psy-ops by a Western intelligence agency. Another one (that I like better, because it fits extremely well with the mangled Qu'ranic verses) is that this might be an operation by an anti-Islamic radical group. God knows, Britain (and Europe in general) has its share of those.

23 Name: bubu 2005-07-07 22:09 ID:Heaven

I think it should be noted, that aljazeera.com is not the TV station al-jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.net), and should be handled with utmost care.

>>22
I'm afraid I find it much more plausible, that the mangled suras are the result of some entirely unconnected dullard posting the alleged claim, than an "anti-Islamic radical group" being behind the attacks.

24 Name: Freak of Nature 2005-07-07 22:33 ID:/3XIhPfO

>>23

>I'm afraid I find it much more plausible, that the mangled suras are the result of some entirely unconnected dullard posting the alleged claim, than an "anti-Islamic radical group" being behind the attacks.

I'd have to say that I agree with you - the "unconnected idiot" hypothesis would seem to be the (Occam's Razor) most likely situation in everything connected with information posted on the 'net.

And yes, you're right - aljazeera.com is the Dubai-based newspaper al-Jazeera, not the al-Jazeera TV station. The two aren't connected, but the fact that you apparently find the TV station reliable (I'm less trusting) does not necessarily disqualify aljazeera.com as an information source.

Incidentally, the name of these two news media, "al-Jazeera", means "The [implied: Arabic] Peninsula".

25 Name: bubu 2005-07-07 23:55 ID:Heaven

>The two aren't connected, but the fact that you apparently find the TV station reliable (I'm less trusting) does not necessarily disqualify aljazeera.com as an information source.

I don't find the TV station reliable, I find it however more trustworthy than the magazine.

26 Name: Unverified Source 2005-07-08 09:14 ID:Heaven

Here is a highly informative Wikipedia "current event" page, which includes links to news sources, blogs, a timeline of events, and translation of the claim for responsibility posted on the Jihadist website Al-Qal'ah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_London_transport_explosions

From http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/07/photos_related_to_lo.html
(lots of other related links there)

27 Name: age 2005-07-08 09:14 ID:Heaven

age

28 Name: Freak of Nature 2005-07-08 10:58 ID:/3XIhPfO

>>25

Since the only datum that I am using the magazine's article for is the statement (not likely to be false, given its nature) that the Qu'ranic verses cited in the post in question (Qur'an Sura 47:7) were not quoted correctly, I see no problems with using the magazine as a source for that -especially since they attribute their own sources for verification.

The question being explored is not whether the TV station or the magazine is reliable, but whether the post claiming responsibility for the bombings is likely to be genuine. The error in the quotation casts doubt on the post's authenticity.

BTW, the extent to which the verse was incorrectly quoted is this: it is missing the opening portion, "O you who believe!" - this exhortation is a vital part of the verse, and not quoting it is a gaffe, at the very least. It just does not seem like something one would see in an al-Qaeda release.

29 Name: Freak of Nature 2005-07-08 11:02 ID:/3XIhPfO

Followup, because I just found this bit linked from the boingboing.net page referenced above:

http://video.google.com/videopreviewbig?q=%22regular+--+of+nonarab+people%22&time=2875000&page=1&docid=-5170856634293456862&urlcreated=1120820401&chan=Fox+News+Channel&prog=Fox+News+Live&date=Thu+Jul+7+2005+at+6%3A00+AM+PDT

A Fox News reporter inadvertently reveals the extent to which the image of "the enemy" has become ethnically linked to Arabic ethnicity, as much as to Islamic faith. Both links, of course, are spurious - as spurious as blaming every American for GWB's excesses.

30 Name: Unverified Source 2005-07-08 17:47 ID:Heaven

lol fox news

31 Name: Alexander!DxY0NCwFJg!!muklVGqN 2005-07-08 18:16 ID:Heaven

>>26

I find it interesting that the momentary almost total communications disruption made it possible for different places to get information "in the wrong order" - BBC, which I respect greatly and normally follow on the web, was stuck on "2 deaths" for quite some time.

This also makes me wonder when the first big event will happen where Wikipedia of all places will have the (best) scoop. I suspect it will happen at some point, due to it having many advantages over other channels in these situations.

32 Name: bubu 2005-07-08 18:53 ID:Heaven

>>31
According to the Guardian's friday issue, that was part of a master-plan (cf. the authorities standing very firmly on the issue and stating that IT WAS A SHORT CIRCUIT WE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE) to buy Clarke more time and reduce panic in the hours immediately following the attacks.

33 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-07-08 23:02 ID:NiTGF0Te

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050709/main2.htm
"officials said the 3 blasts which ripped through underground trains seem to have been caused by package bombs left by attackers who fled and detonated them by timers, not mobile phones or other remote triggers.
The bombs which killed 191 people on trains in Madrid in March 2004 were triggered by mobile phones."

I'm starting to suspect it was the work of a copycat.
I want to know the type of explosives used in each case and if they were a different type.

"The London Police said it received no warning of the attacks, which the government said bore the hallmarks of the Islamic militant Al-Qaida network."

...IOW, no warning = Al-Qaida(!). Does the IRA always warn?

34 Name: Freak of Nature 2005-07-08 23:16 ID:/3XIhPfO

>>33

>The London Police said it received no warning of the attacks, which the government said bore the hallmarks of the Islamic militant Al-Qaida network."
>...IOW, no warning = Al-Qaida(!). Does the IRA always warn?

Hmm... I think I parse that sentence differently than you do. As I read it, it was intended to say that the attacks which "bore the hallmarks of Al-Qaida" (i.e simultaneous attacks on a transport system / soft target), not the fact that they were carried out without warning.

The operative part of the sentence is "...the attacks, which...", after all

35 Name: bubu 2005-07-08 23:20 ID:Heaven

>Does the IRA always warn?

Apart from the 1993 bombing in Belfast, they normally do, yes (the Provos claimed that the bombs in Belfast "exploded prematurely", leaving them no time to issue a warning...). They also normally claim responsibility, which is why the 2000 incident can't be definitely attributed to The Real IRA.

36 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2005-07-09 01:03 ID:Dxe9CrYT

>>32

There was obviously quite an effective media blackout in effect - just witness the title of this thread. I'm inclined to think that it did serve a good purpose.

37 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-07-13 03:41 ID:UVekb+as

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1121163198819_42/?hub=CTVNewsAt11
"[possibily] the people who bombed London's subways last week were domestic suicide bombers."
"Three of the four men lived in Leeds, West Yorkshire -- a city of 715,000 about 300 kilometres north of London. "

"the Guardian newspaper's website reported three of the men were Pakistani in origin. The Associated Press quoted a Leeds town councillor as saying three of the presumed bombers were British citizens of Pakistani ancestry.

The Guardian also reported that security forces described all four suspects as "cleanskins," meaning they had no documented involvement with terror groups or criminal records."

38 Name: Unverified Source 2005-07-14 03:36 ID:hTSxkVC6

>>37
And this is why there is no way to ever stop these terrorist. They can be almost anyone. And they just act on their own. Only way you can ever stop one is if you can read someone's mind.

39 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-07-14 15:41 ID:XlTkbrIO

I read there's some talk about putting xray viewers in the Tube.

40 Name: 2005-07-15 13:46 ID:Heaven

>>39

Got a source?

41 Name: Freak of Nature 2005-07-15 16:54 ID:/3XIhPfO

42 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-07-16 03:31 ID:Heaven

Guess they never heard of the MOM principle, or maybe a certain something about "weakest link"...

43 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-07-18 02:07 ID:XlTkbrIO

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Pakistan_warned_British_intelligence_about_terrorist_plans_to_bomb_London
"A British newspaper has revealed that Pakistan had warned British counter-terrorism experts in May 2005 about terrorist plans to bomb London in the 'early summer'.

The Pakistani interior minister, Aftab Sherpao, told The Observer that interrogations of a 25-year old Pakistani-born Briton believed to be a member of al-Qaeda had revealed a plot to 'bomb London pubs, restaurants and possibly railway stations'"

44 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-07-18 02:13 ID:XlTkbrIO

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/London_bombers_may_have_been_%27duped%27_into_committing_suicide
"The Daily Mirror claims that the bombers brought return rail tickets to Luton, and that they purchased pay and display car park tickets before boarding the train at Luton Station. The tabloid paper also states how the bombers all had personal items on their person at the time of the attacks, such as wallets, driving licences and bank cards. It also states how they were carrying large rucksacks which could be easily dumped, instead of having the explosives strapped to their bodies, as would be expected by a suicide bomber. It also points to evidence from the bombers families, where two of the men had pregnant wives."

45 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-07-20 22:11 ID:Heaven

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4696873.stm
"Sniffer dogs are [now] being used across the London Underground to detect explosives in the wake of the London bomb attacks."

46 Name: 2005-07-21 12:51 ID:Heaven

Two weeks later, it seems, they came back for round two:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4703777.stm

Emergency services have been called to three Tube stations after "incidents", Scotland Yard said.
Police confirmed they had been called to Warren Street, Oval and Shepherd's Bush stations.

47 Name: Unverified Source 2005-07-21 14:18 ID:XiPXn39E

Three Tube lines have been suspended across London as police investigate "incidents" at three stations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4703973.stm

48 Name: 2005-07-21 21:18 ID:Heaven

I think this latest attack might be the work of some "terrorist copycat" thinking that they could match what happened only a fortnight ago.

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.