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
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
http://derstandard.at/?id=2103979
185 injured, at least 10 casualties in King's Cross
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.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/74918957@N00/pool/
Cam-phone photos of London events.
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."
BBC
"At least two people have been killed"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4659093.stm
CNN: 33 dead confirmed
Inshallah, my droogs. Inshallah!
> 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.
Give them a break, they're still struggling to understand the concept of images on webpages.
>>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.
Why don't you hyperlink me, bitch?
>>15
https://www.qal3ah.org, genius.
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.
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
>>16
is that site working or is it blocked for me?
>>20
it's been timing out for some hours now. It's not just you.
>>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.
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.
>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".
>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.
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)
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.
Followup, because I just found this bit linked from the boingboing.net page referenced above:
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.
lol fox news
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.
>>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.
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?
>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
>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.
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.
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."
>>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.
I read there's some talk about putting xray viewers in the Tube.
>>40
I got yer sauce roight hear, mate:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20409-1686151,00.html
Guess they never heard of the MOM principle, or maybe a certain something about "weakest link"...
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'"
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."
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."
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.
Three Tube lines have been suspended across London as police investigate "incidents" at three stations.
I think this latest attack might be the work of some "terrorist copycat" thinking that they could match what happened only a fortnight ago.