London Subway

[Pumaman]

In a sense that's not such a bad thing. I think the authorities (including Blair) and particularly the BBC have dealt with the attacks calmly and without hyperbole. This is appropriate to the nature of this attack.

I agree completely, I think the level of coverage has been about right for this incident; it's a shame they went so wildly overboard with Diana.

I'm quite impressed with the way that they got pretty much all of the trains and buses running again this morning, people still went to work, life carried on almost as usual. So long as people continue to do that rather than sitting at home cowering in fear, terrorists will never win.

[Chicky]

Amen.

[RickJ]

I would like to offer my condolences and prayers for all our friends in the UK.   

[Domino]

It was indeed a tragic event that happened, but to see all Londoners getting back to their normal routines and act as nothing had happened was truly amazing.  You people are as tough as nails.

I was deeply saddened by this event, and hopefully the people responsible for it will eventually be caught.

[Disco]

At work today everyone was trying to talk me out of my Mittens trip, which includes a side trip to London. I never thought of cancelling, and to tell you the truth, this tragedy only makes me want to travel more often. Life goes on, and you never know, it could be me one day who is caught in the crossfire.

Here I come world.

[Pumaman]

At work today everyone was trying to talk me out of my Mittens trip, which includes a side trip to London. I never thought of cancelling, and to tell you the truth, this tragedy only makes me want to travel more often.

Indeed, that sort of talk is silly. When you break it down scientifically, the chances of being involved in a terrorist attack are very low.

Let's say that in London a terrorist attack happens once every 5 years.
Each attack kills 50 people.
That's 10 people per year.
On the other hand, 220 people die each year in road accidents.

So you're 22 times more likely to be hit by a bus when crossing the road than you are to be killed by terrorists; and yet does anyone say "oooh you mustn't visit city X in case you get hit by a bus"?

[Nacho]

Mmmmm... Sorry to bring this back, but where can people see "opression from Occident" in 4 English guys who have a middle-low level of life?

[Pumaman]

It's a funny old world.

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

I guess London now returns to the bad old IRA days of expecting terrorist attacks on a regular basis; it's a pity.

[Becky]

Luckily this time it appears to have not been sucessful.  In any case, at least it wasn't on the same scale as the ones on the 7th of July.  Apparently things are already getting back to normal in London right now.

[Matt Goble]

Yeah, no problems getting home from work today, although a lot of sirens during the day as I work not far from shepherd's bush.

I think Chris is right about the level of coverage the July 7th bombings recieved.  Speaking with a colleague today, it turns out that her brother's best friend's friend was injured in the July 7th attacks.  I mention this for two reasons:

1. It helps put in context how un-affected most of us have been from these attacks.  This is the closest I have thankfully come to this tragic event and even though over 50 people lost their lives, that's nothing compared to the number of people who work and live in London, and pales in comparisson to those killed on 9-11.  About 30 people died in the Kings Cross fire 15 years ago due to litter catching fire, and anyone who travels on London Undergroun knows that you often get up to 50 people in a carraige.

2. This friend of a friend of a friend has been very seriously injured, and I think the nature of the injuries to the survivors has been played down so as to dampen the 'success' of the attack.

Matt
(Who will update his AGS Annual post at the weekend AND post his Brittens photos  )

[darkx5]

can't wee keep terorisim in movies and cvideo games?

do we all have to fight just because of a few beleifs?

can't we all just deal with our insecurities and downfalls without ruining it for everyone else?

CAN'T WE GROW UP?

[Las Naranjas]

I hope Egyptians are considered post worthy.

[passer-by]

I hope Egyptians are considered post worthy.

People dying as seemingly random targets when they are not directly involved to anything is appaling and unfair, whoever they are...and it is very probable that we will hear more of this kind of news.

[Babar]

I just heard about that today. It's a pity about Sharm 'el Sheikh. Makes you wonder what these people hope to gain. That politicians will hold their meetings elsewhere? That less people will go on holiday?

[Pumaman]

I hope Egyptians are considered post worthy.

I do find it bizarre how, over here at least, the Egypt attacks (which killed more than 80 people) are getting less media coverage than the latest state of the London investigation. I guess "Western" targets like New York, Madrid and London are always likely to feature more strongly since they don't have the history of terrorism that places like Egypt do.

Sympathy of course goes to everyone caught up in these attacks. Most of the victims it seems were not actually Egyptian but were foreign holidaymakers, aimed to disrupt the tourist industry no doubt.

[Nacho]

I actually liked how people is getting used to this... In my mind it seems that the terrorist will be tired sooner of later if we don't take care of it. Because terrorism is that, just frustrated people trying to seek attention.

But we must not fall into their game, and threw stones to our own roof.  The "blind greed of the capitalist societies" can't be applicated to Bin Laden, one of the richest man in Arabia, by the money heritaged form his parent in the first term, and for the heroin business in second (Yeah, the "romantic Islamic fighter" is the biggest heroin dealer in the World). Where is the "opression of the capitalism" in a guy who has a career in architecture and has studied its postdegree in Hamburg? (Mohammed Atta) Where is the oppression in the son of two Tunisian diplomats who is studying Economics sciences (with a subsidy obtained thru the Spanish International Cooperation Agency) in the best University of Spain? (Serhane Fakhet, the brain of Madrid's 11-m) Where is the oppression in an English guy who lives in an independent three-storey house in Leeds, whose parents have two Mercedes? (Shehzad Tanweers).

Islam has a problem. It's  not a problem in the Coran, not a problem of the people... It's a simple problem of concept. We can make fun of how old fashioned is the Pope, and Rome... But it is the central source of authority of Catholicism. Islam have not that, anyone can declare himself Imam, set a place and start talking (words that his parishioners must follow). If one of those Imams is a frustrated, that mosque will become a source of people that will mainly give a shit of what his Imam says, but it will probably work for recruiting 2 or 3 people that are as frustrated as his shepherd. And that's dangerous.

I know what will you say. You'll say "Anti-abortist do kill people too". Ok... let's talk of figures. I think that antiabortists have killed like 5 or 6 people in tha last 10 years. Those people who call themselves followers of the Islam must have killed like 5,000 (3000 in US, 500 in Russia, 200 in Madrid, 50 in London...) I think figures do clearly say that this problem of concept in Islam is serious...

And don't tell me I am a racist, or that I do hate Islam. I think that 99 % of Islamist must be as sick as me of those who are giving bad name to his religion. I think it is a problem they'd like to sollute and I think they'd agree with me.

Muslim AGSers... I'd really like to know what do you think of that, if that problem (the auto-proclaimed Imams) is that serious in your country. Which is the level of fundamentalism... I am really interested in knowing, and if you feel offended, read my post carefully, you'll find that you have nothing to see with the part of the islam I don't like.

Thanks for your attention.

[Babar]

Having a central authority on Islam will be no help. What if there ends up a bad guy in that place? You know what Ben Ladin is aiming for? The same. What would the world be like with a guy like that at the head of Islam?
I think it is better without a "Central Leader". The thing should be that people should have the common sense to question what is told to them. There would be something seriously wrong with anyone who goes "Yeah, sure" when they are told that the slaughter of thousands of innocents (most who never had anything against them) is somehow justified.
The only job of an Imam is to lead the prayer, and read a sermon. It is not the Imam's place to be making speeches about how these people or those people need to be murdered.

[DoorKnobHandle]

I decided to not join this discussion and I will stick to that decision, but I just had to point this little mistake out...

Ben Ladin

His name is actually Bin Laden...

[Las Naranjas]

Of course everyone listens to the Pope, Italy enjoys a massive birthrate because no-one there uses contraception because he says not to!
And abstinence and fidelity in catholic countries in Africa is stemming AIDS dramatically!

Even if there was an authority figure, if there's the 1% of dickheads, do you think they'd listen to a leader anyway, especially if it's one as disputed as the pope. After all, we've had decades of The Troubles in Ireland in recent history where thousands have died over popery or not [at least on the level that any conflict is about religion]. I don't think the IRA were listening to the pope, nore the UDA to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury.

The Troubles also brings me to CJ's point...does Egypt really have a greater experience of terrorism than Britain? I think it's just plain ethnocentrism. An Australian cyclist died in Germany and got exponentially greater coverage than 150 dying in a train crash in Pakistan.

[Nacho]

[out of topic] The Pope says, actually, "do not have sexual relationships out of marriage" in first term. If there is AIDS in Africa it's because many people do not like to use condoms and when they get infected they must blame to somebody else, the church, of course. But most of the cases of infections are between people who is having sexual relationships out of the marriage freely.  Blaming it to the Pope is just an hypocrit excuse by that people.

It is like if an authority says "Do not drive cars, because they re dangerous, and if you drive, do not use the life belt, because it goes against the natural laws" It that stupid? Yeah, people will have the need to use cars. People will drive. Saying they won't is being blind and hypocrit. But if you drive and you have an accident and are seriouslly injuried you can't say "My most important injuries can be blamed to the authorities, because I haven't used the life belt because I am following the law!"

You see the hipocrisy? You haven't followed the law because the authority told you not to drive in first term. If you are too weak for not following the law, give another step and do it propperly, use the security devices and don't blame to somebody else what must be blamed to you.[/out of topic]

But I am just being the advocate of the devil, here... I don't follow the words of the Pope and I think they're not right in this case. But not anything can be blamed to the church in very specific case. 

And [...], thanks, but I think I'll never sollute my typos.