Explosions in London

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I cant help think of the irony of life: Yesterday London was on Cloud 9, Today they hit a low point. sad day, indeed.

[Franklinnoble]

It's like raaaaiiinnn........ eh, nevermind.

[DaddyTorgo]

i love how people are so convinced this is Al Qaeda related. it doesn't make any sense to me that it'd be al qaeda related. If it was AQ I think it would have been a lot more effective than like, less than 100 people dead. It seems to me to be clearly G8-meeting related. Seems like the work of one or two guys wanting to draw attention the G8 summit rather than AQ.

[Bubba Wheels]

Time magazine ran some articles on a particularly radical Muslim cleric in London running a mosque that alot of terrorist recruiting was being conducted out of. This 'cleric' was quoted as saying things like 'we won't stop until the whole world is Muslim" and such. Can't help wondering where this guy and his crowd might fit in.

Think that this is the same place that the 'shoe-bomber' was recruited out of.

[Desnudo]

"A group calling itself the Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe claimed responsibility."

That's probably why.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

"A group calling itself the Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe claimed responsibility."
That's probably why.

I have a sneaking suspicion you might be right about that

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i love how people are so convinced this is Al Qaeda related. it doesn't make any sense to me that it'd be al qaeda related. If it was AQ I think it would have been a lot more effective than like, less than 100 people dead. It seems to me to be clearly G8-meeting related. Seems like the work of one or two guys wanting to draw attention the G8 summit rather than AQ.

Good point about responsibility. Who is responsible for any terrorist attack isn't usually apparent right away, and the rumor mill can shift about for days--check out the Madrid train bombing thread on this board for such a phenomenon...

[Desnudo]

Except when

"A group calling itself the Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe claimed responsibility."

[wbatl1]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Except when

"A group calling itself the Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe claimed responsibility."

Many times a group claims responsibility as eithor a way to get publicity or a way to hide the real group. The group that claims responsibility is often not the group that did it. Also, this "group" has never been heard of before.

[Desnudo]

Certainly possible. Except sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one. And it explains why everyone is assuming that it was AQ, which was the original point of the post. I suppose it could have been anti-globalization hippies or London punk rockers, so we'll see.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i love how people are so convinced this is Al Qaeda related. it doesn't make any sense to me that it'd be al qaeda related. If it was AQ I think it would have been a lot more effective than like, less than 100 people dead. It seems to me to be clearly G8-meeting related. Seems like the work of one or two guys wanting to draw attention the G8 summit rather than AQ.

I'll take the challenge. This fits well with what what happened in Madrid and NY, both attacks which occured at pretty much the same time in the morning (during rush). The fact that the body count wasn't higher may be similar to why the 9/11 count wasn't higher in that perhaps later terror attacks that were to occur didn't come off because the increased security made it harder to do it (they effectively shut down central London, much like we shut down the air traffic on 9/11). It could also be that the bombs were less effective than their devisers had hoped. There could be a lot of reasons why you didn't get 300 or 3,000 dead like on 3/11 or 9/11, but a low body count shouldn't preclude AQ.

Also, if this were G-8 protesters, this would seem to drive people against whatever position they are pushing, not to mention very counter to the vast majority of G-8 protesters' wishes who mostly are peaceful aside from the anarchists in their ranks who love nothing more than smashing things for the sake of "rebellion" (or, IMO, an unwillingness to grow up and actually be responsible adults).

I cannot say for certain this was AQ, but a lot of the circumstantials lean in that direction. It could be a splinter cell that doesn't act on AQ's say-so, but they'd obviously approve of the attack.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Certainly possible. Except sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one. And it explains why everyone is assuming that it was AQ, which was the original point of the post. I suppose it could have been anti-globalization hippies or London punk rockers, so we'll see.

Could even be RIRA. Have they disavowed involvement yet?

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

"A group calling itself the Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe claimed responsibility."

I put on my robe and wizard hat.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Could even be RIRA. Have they disavowed involvement yet?

Do they even need to? It's not 1985 anymore.

[Wolfpack]

I have to think that any IRA or IRA-like organization isn't in this for much the same reason the Basques weren't in on the Madrid bombing. It just isn't their style at all. These groups prefer to get some headlines and strike a little fear, but they don't want body counts (except for the occasional judge or prosecutor or whatnot) because body counts would drive public opinion the other way from them. It's particularly so with the IRA who are getting a lot of what they want nowadays (I believe they were to disarm and disband at one time because of Good Friday, but I don't think they've ever done it) and are gaining ground politically, so there's no need to jeopardize that. They could do it anyway and hope that people think AQ did it, but that would require some degree of luck and foresight in planning that keeps their names out of the mix and I wouldn't hold my breath on that point.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Do they even need to? It's not 1985 anymore.

Perhaps you should take a look at your timelines...

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/nira.htm

Agreed that it's unlikely, but they certainly have the history (Omagh) and capability. I think they are also reaching out to other groups on a mercenary basis (I believe a couple of IRA bomb makers were arrested in Columbia trying to assist the FARC)...

[Senator]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Except when

"A group calling itself the Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe claimed responsibility."

.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

I'll take the challenge. This fits well with what what happened in Madrid and NY, both attacks which occured at pretty much the same time in the morning (during rush). The fact that the body count wasn't higher may be similar to why the 9/11 count wasn't higher in that perhaps later terror attacks that were to occur didn't come off because the increased security made it harder to do it (they effectively shut down central London, much like we shut down the air traffic on 9/11). It could also be that the bombs were less effective than their devisers had hoped. There could be a lot of reasons why you didn't get 300 or 3,000 dead like on 3/11 or 9/11, but a low body count shouldn't preclude AQ.

Also, if this were G-8 protesters, this would seem to drive people against whatever position they are pushing, not to mention very counter to the vast majority of G-8 protesters' wishes who mostly are peaceful aside from the anarchists in their ranks who love nothing more than smashing things for the sake of "rebellion" (or, IMO, an unwillingness to grow up and actually be responsible adults).

I cannot say for certain this was AQ, but a lot of the circumstantials lean in that direction. It could be a splinter cell that doesn't act on AQ's say-so, but they'd obviously approve of the attack.

but if it's a splinter-cell of AQ I personally wouldn't consider that to be Al Qaeda. If I'm talking about AQ I'd want to say like "bin Ladin himself ordererd/planned the attacks." Otherwise I don't really consider it AQ. Because any twobit wacko can claim to be a member of AQ for publicity's sake.

edit: And I don't think we can credit "good response" by the London authorities to keeping the body count down. My point is that IF this was an AQ attack I would have expected (now maybe I'm giving the dirtbags too much credit), but I would have expected their planning to factor in an effective response by the London authorities and to even take advantage of that to increase their bodycount. Basically I think from what I've heard of these attacks they were sorta a "shoestring" style attack. Now if we were talking multiple buses ripped apart and serious casualties in the underground, instead of the (no offense to anyone who lost someone in the attacks) rather ineffective attacks that these seemed to be. Now if we find 10-20 unexploded devices through the rest of the transit system and it appears that this was a failure of execution not of planning, then maybe I'd think it was an actual "real AQ" operation, but until then it seems more likely it was some serious splinter-group just trading in on the AQ name to give themself legitimacy, not something directed by the "big baddies" .

That make sense?

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Perhaps you should take a look at your timelines...

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/nira.htm

Number of RIRA attacks in London, or England for that matter?

[wbatl1]

I would say that it is highly likely to be extremist muslims. But, that does not neccessarily make it Al-Qaida. There is said to be a separate Mulsim terrorist group in France that would like a unified europe. They could be involved.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

They could do it anyway and hope that people think AQ did it, but that would require some degree of luck and foresight in planning that keeps their names out of the mix and I wouldn't hold my breath on that point.

It would also ruin the whole point of the attack.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

but if it's a splinter-cell of AQ I personally wouldn't consider that to be Al Qaeda. If I'm talking about AQ I'd want to say like "bin Ladin himself ordererd/planned the attacks." Otherwise I don't really consider it AQ. Because any twobit wacko can claim to be a member of AQ for publicity's sake

But if that's so, then there's no such organization as ELF for example, which operates entirely with independent cells. At some point, sympathetic aims will allow "unofficial" coalesence into a group such as ELF or an alliance like our hypothetical group and AQ. And yes, any two-bit whacko can claim AQ, but that's the nature of these things. There isn't a membership roll tacked up on a wall somewhere and they check for attendance everyday or something.

Even if AQ didn't directly order the attack, it doesn't follow that they wouldn't approve of the attack. Therefore, even if these were AQ sympathizers, AQ will likely praise them in future communiques and say they're in cahoots anyway, simply because AQ would like to keep their names in the paper, even if they didn't do the deed themselves.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Number of RIRA attacks in London, or England for that matter?

Again, it's unlikely but shouldn't be discounted. They seem plenty active in London and the UK:

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/tro...les/rira.shtml)

Such was the outrage over Omagh that the Real IRA issued a statement within days saying it was suspending all "military operations". However, the suspension did not last for long and they re-emerged in February 2000. Since then they have carried out a number of attacks in Northern Ireland and Britain They gained international publicity in September 2000 when they fired an RPG rocket at British foreign intelligence HQ, MI6, in London and in March 2001 they planted a bomb outside BBC Television Centre in London. The organisation has not made a formal declaration that its cease-fire is over.

In May 2001 the US State Department designated the Real IRA as a foreign terrorist organisation and froze its financial assets.

In July British and Irish government sources were hinting that the Real IRA was in disarray after the arrest of several of its leading figures. This analysis proved premature. In August a bomb exploded in Ealing Broadway in west London and on 3rd November a car bomb containing about 30 kg of home-made explosives was planted in Birmingham city centre. The bomb did not fully detonate and no one was injured. Both attacks were believed to have been carried out by the Real IRA.

[Desnudo]

I know this early it's impossible to discount a lot of things. And I'm certain that they will investigate the possibility it was IRA. I think it is far, far more likely to be the work of Muslim terrorists, especially since one has claimed credit for it.

[vtbub]

I'd be shocked if it was RIRA.

Whatever was responsible would not gain any favor in Europe for blowing up Europeans.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I bought an art history book ffrom the University bookstore earler and happened to pass by a coffee shop on the way and heard a bunch of kids talking about how ''It's our fault that we are being bombed, We should understand them, and How it wouldn't have happened if Kerryt was Prez....'' I just sat beind them sipping my dark black coffee and listening to their diatribe. I swear if I hear something like that happeneing again I'll throw a fit.

[flere-imsaho]

The IRA & their splinter groups also tend to send out clear warnings to authorities (or try to) enough in advance of the detonation so that the body count is minimized. They want to blow shit up, especially stuff that has an important symbolic value, but they don't want big body counts. Almost without exception, every high-body-count IRA or IRA-related attack has turned out badly for them, and they admit as much.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by Senator

.

Hmmm...Senator is posting periods in bombing/terrorist related threads. Senator is also associated with the Department of Homeland Security in some way, I believe.

He posted a period the "Orange Alert" thread.

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=40508

Methinks he is spying on us. Terrorists beware! We've got Senator on our side!!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

I swear if I hear something like that happeneing again I'll throw a fit.

Be more fun to throw the art history book (in the absence of scalding hot cup of latte).

[JW]

Al Qaeda is a very loosely structured group and there are AQ 'wannabe' groups. It could well have been radical Islamic fundamentalists who were not directly ordered by AQ to carry out the attack but who were attacking in concordance with the strategic direction of AQ. It could also have been some other group, though radical Islamists makes the most sense to me.

Radical Islam is at war with the West and wishes to destroy the West, whether we like it or not or choose to accept it or not.

As for a reason, terror is used to create terror and fear and demoralize a population. The bombers could have been hoping to create a reaction similar to what happened in Spain, which as you remember bugged out shortly after the attacks. If that was the purpose, they sadly underestimated the British. Or it could have just been a way of saying that 'we're still here.'

If we want to win against radical Islamist terrorists, we have to get at those who support them and train them and fund them.

[Wolfpack]

Unfortunately, there lies the rub. To effectively kill the funding, we'd essentially have to invade Saudi Arabia, home to most of the funding. Were it not for the pesky problems of oil blockades and, more importantly, the fact that Mecca and Medina are in Saudi Arabia, I'd say, "Go for it." However, doing so would result in gas shortages in the West and an almost guaranteed clash of civilizations around the world. No faster way of fulfilling the "Crusader" boogieman the jihadists want to paint us to be.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

(now maybe I'm giving the dirtbags too much credit), ?

You are.

[EagleFan]

No matter who is responsible, my thoughts and prayers go out to those who have been affected by this. I hope that no-one in the FOFC family has been directly affected (if it was mentioned earlier in this thread that someone was, I appologize in advance for missing that).

[flere-imsaho]

I'm impressed. In about a week, the Brits have identified the bombers and started to go after their accomplices, including the arrest (in Egypt) of an Egyptian today:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...cks/index.html

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm impressed. In about a week, the Brits have identified the bombers and started to go after their accomplices, including the arrest (in Egypt) of an Egyptian today:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...cks/index.html

And apparently, they managed to do it without widespread round ups (hoping a few of them will stick)...

[Marc Vaughan]

I'm personally crossing fingers they've got the right people as releasing names that quickly shocked me a lot ...

PS> I also thought it was in particular bad-taste/dangerous to show footage of a business owned by a father of one of the suspects, I'd give its survival chances slim to none in the circumstances ...

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm impressed. In about a week, the Brits have identified the bombers and started to go after their accomplices, including the arrest (in Egypt) of an Egyptian today:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...cks/index.html

Agreed - I think one of the big breaks is when the mother of one of the bombers actually called in to say her child was missing. A huge break, but they've really responded well to it, adding new suspects each day.