Explosion heard in London

[Ninot]

I dont entirely understand why they don't persue individual attacks, but I guess maybe its because they seem more intimidating when they're in groups.

[Theben]

Police briefing said something about a bomb blast blowing thru a wall, affecting 3 trains? If so, that's a powerful bomb.

My sympathies to all who have loved ones in the area, hoping for minimal casualties.

****

[DarkCloud]

Come on... anarchists and anti-globalists are relatively harmless, they'd never do something like this, nor do they have the means to organize that.

Remember the WTO-riots in seattle?

[MrFun]

You guys in England have my sympathy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ninot
I dont entirely understand why they don't persue individual attacks, but I guess maybe its because they seem more intimidating when they're in groups.

I have thought of that as well, since these sorts of systems would seem to be the best possible targets of all- a single bomb on a crowded underground tunnel would be higher than anywhere else, and you can cripple an entire metropolis with one attack.

At the same time, the single individual might have a much harder time securing explosives. Of course, that does not deter some guy with a pipe bomb which doesn;t mean you need to get your hands on hard to get explosives.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

Remember the WTO-riots in seattle?

Riots and bombings are two utterly separate things.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Remember the WTO-riots in seattle?

Oh yeah, like that's the same thing.

[DarkCloud]

Riots and bombings are two utterly separate things.

Both can be deadly. And as we remember from our history classes, the first 'terrorists' were anarchists making bombs in the early 1900's and shooting world leaders...
-
As I was stating, that was my initial impression- considering how important G8 is to anarchist/anti-globalist groups.

Frankly, I wouldn't expect militant islamists to disrupt a summit that had little to do with them and a lot to do with the good of the world, but apparently- they did.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by GePap
At the same time, the single individual might have a much harder time securing explosives.

Well assuming terrorists work in cells, the entire cell could work together to plan the attack, and then just send off one guy with one bomb.

[SlowwHand]

Timothy McVie may or may not have had accomplices, but in the end, one guy did a lot of damage in Oklahoma City.

[Thorgal]

lotfm, to fight terrorism you need INFORMATION, no look for unatended bags in buses. If the terrorist has the bomb ready it is becuase security has already failed and it is TOO late.

For the terrorist the difficult and dangerous part is to remain unsuspected, to get the explosives and organice it all. It is in this phase when police can do something. Go out and plant the bombs is easy even for a child.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I have thought of that as well, since these sorts of systems would seem to be the best possible targets of all- a single bomb on a crowded underground tunnel would be higher than anywhere else, and you can cripple an entire metropolis with one attack.

that was the question that came up after 9/11. If, as was claimed, they had dozens of cells in country, and those cells were a wasting asset (given LE pursuit, detentions, etc) why not use them for random acts of violence, shootings, low level bombings, to add to the panic? But it didnt happen. The conclusion being either they were so well hidden they saw no danger from LE, or they simply didnt have that many cells.

My belief is that their assets IN the US, EU, etc are in fact scarce, and quite valuable. They are not going to use them on anything less than a headline grabbing attack, which means a coordinated multiple attack. Besides, with a single attack, a govt might get away with the Aznar strategy of denying its AQ.

[DarkCloud]

The only problem arises when people either

a: think they won't get caught.
or
b: don't care about getting caught.

If those two variables don't exist- then it's possible to stop terrorism before it begins. If those two variables exist, then it's impossible to stop terrorism by any conventional ways of deterrence.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

Both can be deadly.

So can a stampede in a concert. Your point?

Besides, NO ONE died in Seattle. IN fact, the ONLY death I can think of at one of those riots was when the Italian POLICE shot a protestor.

As I was stating, that was my initial impression- considering how important G8 is to anarchist/anti-globalist groups.

Frankly, I wouldn't expect militant islamists to disrupt a summit that had little to do with them and a lot to do with the good of the world, but apparently- they did.

Just by the fact that the leaders of the rich west are there the G* has meaning to the Islamist terrorist.

[Estilpón]

33 deaths