Terror in London

[Webmaster]

[de]
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,364083,00.html

[en]
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/london.tube/index.html

G8? olympic games? IRA? Al-Quida?

[Mircoslavux]

[de]
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,364083,00.html

[en]
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/london.tube/index.html

G8? olympic games? IRA? Al-Quida?

The End of days has began slowly... :sad:

[Moryarity]

Sehr schlimm..bleibt die Frage, warum? Eine Reaktion auf die Vergabe der Olympischen spiele...ein "zeichen" setzten, dass überall zugeschlagen werden kann....dazu wäre aber lange Planung vorher nötig gewesen, oder doch gegen den G8-Gipfel..oder einfachn ur die "Gunst der Stunde" genutzt, dass London sowieso gerade im Gespräch ist und dann ein Anschlag......warten wir mal auf ein Bekennerschreiben...

[Gimmli]

The End of days has began slowly... :sad:

yes thats true :nono:

[Webmaster]

it is always sad that innocent people have to die or to suffer ;(
terror isn't the answer! terror can't solve problems!

only people can help each other!!!

[Elvain]

it seems that it was some islamic organisation.. the style of attacks fits to this :sad:

innocent people are always the target of such attacks...

[Traveller]

Yes, a group related to "Al Qaeda". Although I'm a little bit surprised that Spain was hit before Brittain. It seems Osama & Co. are "visiting" all of USA's strongest coalition partners. If so, I'm afraid we might be next - we were one of the first to join the coalition and send forces to Iraq (a.f.a.i.r. after Brittain and Spain), we're closer to the Arab world and our security measures are much lower. They can blow up our subway anytime they want! But I don't understand - are these terorists so stupid or am I stupid? Because all these attacks and innocent victims (9/11, Madrid, London) only make me support the so called "War on terror" even more, despite the fact it's being led for petrol. Maybe my logic is illogical...

[Mircoslavux]

I do not understand the people. :bash:
The God is still and remains the same for all of us and God loves everybody the same way and level. But God is very wise and gave us freewill and every man has to decide, whether he will answer to Gods love or not.
And we can see in most of the cases that man is not so clever and decides not to response. :sad:

[Elvain]

I don't want to argue about religious feelings, but you stated christian belief, Mirco. Others may think something else and they must be respected unless they kill people for their truth

[Mircoslavux]

I don't want to argue about religious feelings, but you stated christian belief, Mirco. Others may think something else and they must be respected unless they kill people for their truth

Yes you are right,
everybody has his own true... on the beginning (be creation) everything is pure only the men change it in drastical way and mostly negative.

[Sentra]

"War on terror." :rolleyes:

In an of itself, a contradiction. What about "having sex for the celibate"?

Mankind is far from being grown-up.

[Tom Sailor]

The whole so called "War on terror" is the only reason why there is terror at all! If the US hadn't attacked Iraq there wouldn't have been any bombings probably. But those clever heads in the White House still believe that they're on the right track. So more innocent Europeans will have to die because of Bush's and Blair's wrong assumption.

@Traveller I don't think your country is next. It'll probably be Rome. They've been threatened already. Besides, Berlusconi himself said that he's one of the three B's (Bush, Blair, Berlusconi) who is under steady observation of the terrorists. :rolleyes:

[conquestare legionare]

It was actually good that he attacked iraq. He would have to sooner or later do that. Everyone knows that saddam was a big supporter of al qaida and bin laden.
He supported them with his oil resources he even helped them in 11/9 . He didnt not only do that but massively killed iraqis and kurds there was human and UN reasons too . Just think if bush attacked iraq 2007. Just think how much money saddam had given to al qaida. for 5 years money support from saddam they would be much stronger !!.God knows what they could have done. Blown up full cities with stolen nukes :eek:.

i know that the war has brought an unpredictable price. but why let them create more chaos by waiting. just imagen what would happen if bush didnt attack saddam 2003 but waited longer until 2007 or 2008. just think how much money al qaida would have recived from saddam to do there terrorism around the world. they can go so high as stealing or through corruption get there hands on nuclear bombs. think of what kind of devestation that could happen.

[Tom Sailor]

:eek: I thought that Swedes are peaceful people... Now you praise that war :rolleyes:

I don't think Sadam was able to support anybody. He was very, very weak in the end. He hadn't any weapons of mass destruction. It was just another of Bush's porkies to start a bloody war. Why should Al-Qaida carry out those attacks if they hadn't been attacked by Bush first? I still believe the world would be much more peaceful if the Americans had elected another president :bash:

[conquestare legionare]

saddam had alot of money through saveing it and starving iraqis , nope it wasent bush who attacked them first. bin laden and his band of terrorists al qaida attacked bush first. bin laden feelt very oppresed :rolleyes: by usa haveing relations with saudi arabia.so he order it , it was planned long ago before it was performed. and then 11/9 ... happend. then the term war on terrorism was born. but honestly tom sailor what would happen to london if these trains had nuclear bommbs on them instead of smaller ones just imagen!!!. yes we swededs are peacefull people bu were always ready to pick up arms !!:knight: :swordfigh :viking: :biggrin:

[Austin Chang]

How many attacks like that ever happened? From lots of other groups like el qaida? Did they were catched?
Right, Bush attacked the Iraq later or now. To get the Oil.

Wie viele Solche Angriffe gab es jemals? Von wie vielen anderen Gruppen? Sind die eigentlich jemals erwischt worden?
Natürlich, Bush hätte den Irak früher oder später angegriffen. Um an die Rohstoffe zu kommen :nono:

[Tom Sailor]

Well... Of course, Al-Qaida attacked the US first but there is no proof of a connection between Al-Qaida and Iraq! Even the American press is talking about a preventive war now. So you think it's legal to attack any country just because they might possibly - but without proof - be dangerous? That's rubbish :nono: Besides, nuclear bombs are not that easy to create...

[conquestare legionare]

uhmm but only to moblize and prepare the forces and create new combat humvees and abrham tanks And prepare all the tactics, to establish new camps and everything and to daily supply the soldiers with food and ammunition and salary ,to transport everything there is worth much more then what bush gets to steal before getting noticed. It wasent only for the oil, they would win a new ally in middle east and. free a country from a terrorizeing dictator getting America a better reputation with UN is better reasons then the mass destruction weapons . Even if saddam had mass destruction weapons he wouldint dear launch any of it because he would lose his precious power .

[Sentra]

By the way, the US *have* weapons of mass destruction. Okay, I'll wage a nuclear war against the US tomorrow.

[Traveller]

Haha, Sentra's right!
And yes - the war in Iraq was only (or atleast mainly) for the oil. All this nonsense about mass weapons, dictatorship, liberation of the Iraqis, war with terrorism etc. is only an excuse for the political establishment of Mr. Bush in Iraq and it's oil. Because, in the long-term, all the expenses about the war would return with a very high interest. Atleast, that's what I think...