War against terror

[denoir 0]

Well, I'm not sure about the state of the tunnels (I remember some BBC report fairly early on that said that they would have all the lines running by this week).

Still, the main point is that if the blasts were simultaneous, then they had no control where it would explode, at least not on more than one place. Even if the tube had a precise time table that was followed to the second (which from personal experience I can tell you it is not), the probability of all the trains being in infrastructurally strategic locations at the exactly same time is.. well.. um, very low.

[Bernadotte 0]

Still, the main point is that if the blasts were simultaneous, then they had no control where it would explode, at least not on more than one place. Even if the tube had a precise time table that was followed to the second (which from personal experience I can tell you it is not), the probability of all the trains being in infrastructurally strategic locations at the exactly same time is.. well.. um, very low.

First reports said simultaneous, including the bus attack.  Then it became near simultaneous, excluding the bus attack.  Now it's "within a minute of one another" with the bus bombed an hour later.  I think I'll wait for the investigators' version before allowing the reported timing to form the basis of further speculation.

What is certain is the locations - each of the 3 being at or near the front of the trains and while they were between stations.  Remarkably, coincidentally incompetent, you say?  I think not.  It don't take a rocket scientist to figure out that detonating on a crowded rush-hour platform will kill many more than travelling in a middle car; which will also kill many more than if travelling in a lead car.

Also, since it now appears that they were suicide bombs without timers the level of coordination through use of mobile phones could have been very high.  And I doubt they undertook this attack without any rehearsals.

Edit: Btw, I do believe the bus bombing was a screw up, however it probably contributed more to the disruption than if it had occurred on time, in the underground. You see, the authorities had closed the underground system, but kept the surface transit running. The bus explosion then forced 99% of the city's commuter population to travel on foot. It was really only at that point that a majority of London businesses were face with a full day write off.

[Bernadotte 0]

Is no one going to stop and correct their misconception, or is it too late to change a mindset hellbent to see us 'infidels' all dead?

Finding all those Iraqi weapons of mass destruction would certainly clear up a lot of anti-American misconceptions.  And proving that millions of Palestinian refugees never actually used to have property in Israel would also be a big step in the right direction.

Good luck!  

[theavonlady 2]

And proving that millions of Palestinian refugees never actually used to have property in Israel would also be a big step in the right direction.:tup:

100's of thousand of Arabs used to have property in Israel - not millions.

Similarly, 100's of thousands of Jews used to have property in Arab lands when they were kicked out, even though they were loyal citizens and didn't declare war on the countries they lived in.

[philcommando 0]

Good thinking, but are the coalition forces allowed to do so without being hampered and delayed by tourist terrorists?

So too must Palestinian prove they actually used to have or have not given up claims on the property. But are they allowed to do so in a secular fashion provided by the West without being stirred up by the lunatic mullahs qouting from their own interpretation of the holy book as words from the almighty?

It is so easy to link all issues into a basket and ask someone else to unravel the mess. But the underlying cause is nothing more than religious fanaticm. Its byproduct is death of innocent civilians everywhere WITHOUT WARNING, from Baghdad to Britain.

We can only stop one cause at a time in this messy basket of terrorism. Remove the religious warped interpretations and you will see the mess is nothing other than what secular intervention cannot solve. Without religion, the criminals will find difficulty in obtaining recruits, will have no choice but to sit on the peace table and work out the best deal possible. The other alternative will be to allow religion be used to gain power to wipe us all out in one nuclear confligeration.

The lunatic egoistical self serving mullahs have to be identified and stopped.

[Bernadotte 0]

So too must Palestinian prove they actually used to have or have not given up claims on the property.

How do people who have spent nearly 60 years in a refugee camp prove they actually have not given up claims on property? And what justice system in the world would require you to prove you did not give up claim on your house after I take it from you?

[philcommando 0]

If i can answer your question, nor do i wish to, i would be made the secretary general of the United Nations.

Rather than to ask me what would i do if you had taken my house, but put yourself in your own hypothetical underdog question, for there will lay the answer your seek:-

Feel it in your heart and ask what is right for yourself and your fellow men, if killing others is the only way you can take back your home when you left it for 60 years. If Gandhi could take back his country from the mighty British Empire after 100s of years, inspired millions and not a bomb laid in England, why not you?

[Bernadotte 0]

And proving that millions of Palestinian refugees never actually used to have property in Israel would also be a big step in the right direction.:tup:

100's of thousand of Arabs used to have property in Israel - not millions.

So, it's ok for millions of Jews to reclaim land taken from thousands of their ancestors 2000 years ago, but not ok for Arabs to reclaim land taken from their ancestors (and those still alive) 57 years ago?

Similarly, 100's of thousands of Jews used to have property in Arab lands when they were kicked out, even though they were loyal citizens and didn't declare war on the countries they lived in.

So, what Arabs did to Jews in the 50s justifies what Jews did to the Arabs in the 40s?  Sorry, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

[Bernadotte 0]

Feel it in your heart and ask what is right for yourself and your fellow men, if killing others is the only way you can take back your home when you left it for 60 years. If Gandhi could take back his country from the mighty British Empire after 100s of years, inspired millions and not a bomb laid in England, why not you?

Hey, don't tell me - tell it to the Mullahs. Better still, let Bush and Blair give the Mullahs a lecture about Gandhi's non-violent methods. Let's see how long they can keep a straight face.

[philcommando 0]

Bernadotte

Quote[/b] ]So, what Arabs did to Jews in the 50s justifies what Jews did to the Arabs in the 40s?  Sorry, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

So what would be 'right' in your perception? More deaths?  

Edit: In reply to your previous post on the hypothetical question, you asked and i only gave you a reply that you seek. Bush or Blair didnt ask me nor do i have interest in them. It's you i seek, not to change your perceptions, but that you may be aware only. Unity of mankind despite our differences starts with U n I. ( silly as it may seems, its all we got in the face of the carnage we see.)

[Bernadotte 0]

Bernadotte

Quote[/b] ]So, what Arabs did to Jews in the 50s justifies what Jews did to the Arabs in the 40s?  Sorry, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

So what would be 'right' in your perception? More deaths?  

One secular, democratic state called Israel with both Arabs and Jews living equally side-by-side from the Jordan river to the sea. And according to demographic trends it's inevitable, barring any mass exterminations or deportations.

[philcommando 0]

You still have not answered my question or do i have to take the 'extermination' or ' deportation' as an answer?

Nothing is 'inevitable', only death. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindis,etc had lived side by side in US and Europe and all other countries. Why no M.E? Because its the Holy Land? If so, did the holy books of all cultures said we cant live side by side?....I know aliens from mars can't stand us, but thats another story only Tom Cruise had to deal with!

[theavonlady 2]

And proving that millions of Palestinian refugees never actually used to have property in Israel would also be a big step in the right direction.:tup:

100's of thousand of Arabs used to have property in Israel - not millions.

So, it's ok for millions of Jews to reclaim land taken from thousands of their ancestors 2000 years ago, but not ok for Arabs to reclaim land taken from their ancestors (and those still alive) 57 years ago?

Until the Arab initiated war in 48, Jews bought and built the land in Israel.

In 48, the Arab armies told people to leave Jaffa, Lod, Ramle, Haifa, sections of Jerusalem and other areas where Jews and Arabs lived alongside each other, for the purpose destroying the just-declared independent Jewish state and avoiding collateral damage to Arabs.

They lost.

After the war, all these very same Arab forces and populations remained hostile to Israel and the Arabs rejected any negotiations.

In the meantime, these refugees were kept in the most brutal conditions by their Arab brothers, who essentially kept breeding their hostility to destroy Israel the next time they have the chance.

There have been millions and millions of refugees elswehere around the world and nothing comes close to the decades of time and sums of money contributed by the UN to cater to the Arab's whims of never resettling these refugess - not even to this day.

I will not allow my country to self-destruct. Do it yourself.

Similarly, 100's of thousands of Jews used to have property in Arab lands when they were kicked out, even though they were loyal citizens and didn't declare war on the countries they lived in.

So, what Arabs did to Jews in the 50s justifies what Jews did to the Arabs in the 40s?  Sorry, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Yet you only seem to always recall one people's plight and not anothers. Your opinions are tilted and warped to the extreme. They always have been. You continuously supress facts from Israel's side and do puff pieces for the Arabs.

[theavonlady 2]

If so, did the holy books of all cultures said we cant live side by side?

" England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God."

[Bernadotte 0]

Until the Arab initiated war in 48, Jews bought and built the land in Israel.

They bought and built the land in Palestine.  Israel did not exist before that war.

In the meantime, these refugees were kept in the most brutal conditions by their Arab brothers

And it's so easy to forget about those Arabs that remained refugees within Israel.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Then why did you bring up the one in response to the other?  

Yet you only seem to always recall one people's plight and not anothers.

But you just said that one has nothing to do with the other.  

[EiZei 0]

Around and 'round we go..

[Bernadotte 0]

Bernadotte

Quote[/b] ]So, what Arabs did to Jews in the 50s justifies what Jews did to the Arabs in the 40s?  Sorry, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

So what would be 'right' in your perception? More deaths?  

One secular, democratic state called Israel with both Arabs and Jews living equally side-by-side from the Jordan river to the sea.  And according to demographic trends it's inevitable, barring any mass exterminations or deportations.

You still have not answered my question or do i have to take the 'extermination' or ' deportation' as an answer?

No. No.  I meant, assuming there will not be any mass exterminations or deportations the non-Jewish population will eventually be greater than the Jewish population.  And this will more likely lead to a secular democracy rather than a state where a minority rule the majority.

You see, the average non-Jew in Israel continues to have over twice as many babies as Israel's Jews.  And the trend appears to be getting even more disproportionate.  So, if this continues Israel will eventually either cease to be a Jewish state or cease to be a democracy.

In other words the winner will be the one who makes love, not war!!  

[theavonlady 2]

Until the Arab initiated war in 48, Jews bought and built the land in Israel.

They bought and built the land in Palestine.  Israel did not exist before that war.

I did not state "Israel". I stated "Jews". So, your point is?

But this was also done through the Jewish Agency and other official and semi-official organizations, which were set up in response to the League of Nations' approval for the permanent home for the Jewish people in the land of Israel.

Quote[/b] ]

In the meantime, these refugees were kept in the most brutal conditions by their Arab brothers

And it's so easy to forget about those Arabs that remained refugees within Israel.

Quote[/b] ]

One has nothing to do with the other.

Then why did you bring up the one in response to the other?  

My intentions were misunderstood. A people losing their homes by supporting and participating in a beligerant war against others is not to be compared to people who did absolutely nothing to the countries they were citizens in.

Quote[/b] ]

Yet you only seem to always recall one people's plight and not anothers.

But you just said that one has nothing to do with the other.  

Read again.

No. No. I meant, assuming there will not be any mass exterminations or deportations the non-Jewish population will eventually be greater than the Jewish population. And this will more likely lead to a secular democracy rather than a state where a minority rule the majority.

This will lead to an Islamic Jihadic terrorist entity, just like the PA is running now.

There will be no room for democracy, communisim nor liberals.

And they won't stop at the Meditteranean.

[Bernadotte 0]

...the League of Nations' approval for the permanent home for the Jewish people in the land of Israel.

Ah yes, the good old days.  When a "League" of dignitaries could simply decree that Palestine become the permanent home for a foreign population without even seeking the consensus of the inhabitants.

Don't you see anything wrong with that?  

[theavonlady 2]

...the League of Nations' approval for the permanent home for the Jewish people in the land of Israel.

Ah yes, the good old days.  When a "League" of dignitaries could simply decree that Palestine become the permanent home for a foreign population without even seeking the consensus of the inhabitants.

Don't you see anything wrong with that?  

No. But keep whining for another 100 or 500 years. Help stoke the flames, yee great lovers of peace.

May I suggest that those guilty countries who were signatores to the Mandate chop up pieces of their countries now to be given to Arabs as an attonement?

/sarcasm=off

Quote[/b] ]EiZei Posted on July 13 2005,11:54

Around and 'round we go..

Do you realize how many times you've said that?

[Panda-PL- 0]

It don't take a rocket scientist to figure out that detonating on a crowded rush-hour platform will kill many more than travelling in a middle car; which will also kill many more than if travelling in a lead car.

Well. Disagree.

First of all thanks to placing the explosive in a front car the whole train ramed into it after it blocked the tunnel. The explosives were relatively small so if you wanted to increase their efectiveness you would use the train's momentum and energy to your advantage.

Why not the stations?

If you detonate a bomb in a crowd usually the closest people act like a shield and the explosion is directed upwards where it dissipates. Now if you set off explosive in a narrow tunnel there is no energy dissipation. The blast will be directed by tunnel walls (which are stronger material then human bodies) allong the tunnel, thus it will strike more people.

As You see both time and place were chosen to maximise the casualties, minimize the energy wasted due to shockwave dissipation and utilize the energy of a train itself.

[Bernadotte 0]

May I suggest that those guilty countries who were signatores to the Mandate chop up pieces of their countries now to be given to Arabs as an attonement?

How very insightful of you.  Let's start by chopping up the World Trade Center.  Next, we can chop up a Madrid train station.  Now, let's throw in a dash of chopped up London underground.

Happy?  

...Or perhaps we should try to find a solution better than the Old Testament's eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

[kevbaz 0]

We Are Not Afraid

check it out!

[theavonlady 2]

May I suggest that those guilty countries who were signatores to the Mandate chop up pieces of their countries now to be given to Arabs as an attonement?

How very insightful of you.  Let's start by chopping up the World Trade Center.  Next, we can chop up a Madrid train station.  Now, let's throw in a dash of chopped up London underground.

Happy?  

Boo hoo! It's the jooooooooooooooz fault!

Sudan, Kashmir, Thailand, Indonesia, Algeria, Morocco, The Philipines, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon.............

Wa! Wa! Wa! The joooooooooooooooooooooooooz!

...Or perhaps we should try to find a solution better than the Old Testament's eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

I'm not familiar with your interpretation of that Biblical verse.

Nor do I usually care for it as a philosophy of life. Nor do I see it being put into practice most of the time.

Oh yes, the jackass idea that this is a "cycle of violence". Of course. Another well worn cliche that doesn't distinguish between those that terrorize to annihilate versus those that try to stop them.

More moral equiavelency rhetoric. Come to think of it, that sounds more like an eye for an eye...................

[Bernadotte 0]

/sarcasm=off

And I soooooooooooooo wanted to believe you.