Explosion heard in London - political part

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I don't understand the relevance of your question.

You have a pretty well defined load - a coach - why should you want to change the size of this just because you have invented something that can replace the horses ?

[Dauphin]

The loads you can carry with a steam engine far far exceed that which a horse can pull.

[BlackCat]

A coach isn't drawn by one horse - 2 to 6 was the norm.

[Dauphin]

And steam engines had 'horsepower' orders of magnitude greater than that too.

[Velociryx]

True...and yet...there it is.

The railways are indeed....just that wide.

Is there a better standard?

Undoubtedly.

And Betamax was better than VHS, too.

That didn't make it the standard, however.

Acceptance makes the standards.

Ease of acceptance.

-=Vel=-

[DAVOUT]

Shi Huangdi,

"The terrorists have come home," said a senior intelligence official based in Europe, who works often with British officials. "It is payback time for a policy that was, in my opinion, an irresponsible policy of the British government to allow these networks to flourish inside Britain."

I am under the impression that some Brits will not agree with this statement.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Dauphin
And steam engines had 'horsepower' orders of magnitude greater than that too.

I guess that we can keep this thread pretty hot by our "steamed" discussion, and I don't mind to continue. Though, the relevance to the political aspects of the bombings in london may be a little vauge, so I suggest either cease fire or a new thread .

Just a warning, my father collects steam locomotives size 1:1 so I think that I have an idea of what I'm talking about

[Velociryx]

Cat!

-=Vel=-

[Dauphin]

I figured it was your thread to start with, so the threadjack was ok. I'm glad you see the lighter side.

I studied the original Stockton-Darlington line and the whole Boulton-Watt steam engines as part of my socio-cconomics history of late 18th and early 19th century Britain at school. So I found it interesting to revisit in one-line mode.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I figured it was your thread to start with, so the threadjack was ok. I'm glad you see the lighter side.

Nah, I concider this thread as public to discuss the political aspects of the bombing and of course energy, sources of such and the devices that use them are a part of that - I just guess that we both went down a path that was a little off topic

I studied the original Stockton-Darlington line and the whole Boulton-Watt steam engines as part of my socio-cconomics history of late 18th and early 19th century Britain at school. So I found it interesting to revisit in one-line mode.

Admitted, you probably know more about the political aspects of the origin lines - my knowledge is more about danish railroads and the functionality of steam engines.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Thorgal
Western Civilization? You should know that attacks in London were obviously another ETA´s fine work. Send greetings to Aznarin from us wherever he is.

"A palabras necias..."

At least Aznar does not justify terrorism acts claiming that they are just angry responses to the injustices in the world provoked by the Western countries...

[PLATO]

I think it is both interesting and telling that a discussion of the political causes of terrorism moves swiftly to energy and economic issues.

'Poly may be on to something here!

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Let me recommend a book that might help on this subject- "Freedom under Thatcher" by Keith Ewing and Conor Gearty. It might cause you to reconsider your stance- particularly the sections on police and judicial tactics used during the miners strike.

i don't know much about the miners strike, since it happend around the time i was born, from what i do know, it was at the time a national crisis. i don't think you can compare how a goernment acts in a crisis to the erosion of rights that we've seen in the last eight years.

what will be interesting to see is how this government reacts to these bombings, my guess would be to get ID cards pushed through, but we'll have to wait and see.

[Winston]

Quotes from the topped thread, my comment wouldn't be appropriate there.

Originally posted by Zkribbler

The attack was unreservedly condemned at Friday prayers by the mosque's imam.

This is what we need to win the War On Terror. There are those on both sides who characterize the war as Christians vs. Muslims. If the war ever becomes to be generally viewed as that, then it becomes a war which cannot be won.

This was must be seen in its true nature: barbarian hate-filled fanatics vs. civilization.

Unfortunately, I can't escape the nagging suspicion that many Muslims who condemn the bombings, do so primarily because they appear to give Muslims a bad name. At least I have yet to hear a Muslim leader who doesn't connect those two 'messages'. Not just convey them separately, but connect them.

Edit: Corrected 'to' to 'two'

[GePap]

The idea that the west will become independent of Middle Eastern oil is absurd- economically unfeasable, and besides the "West" is not even going to be the main oil customers in the next few decades.

but beyond that, the impoverishment of places like SA and the gulf states would only lead to greater Islamic militancy, NOT LESS. The notion that the west would then be safer cause, what? No Saudi funders? is also rather strange. Terrorism is not that hugely expensive, and there will be plenty of wealth amongst the supporters of Islamic militancy to bankroll attacks.

I liked Plato's post about AQ aims.

The thing is, those aims are in sequence. The "world domination" on is far, FAR, in teh future, given thay have yet to take over any significant Muslim states- they only got Afghanistan because that country was blown to bits and left utterly lawless and destitute by fighting, and the people wlecomed the relative stability of the Taliban vs. the utter chaos of the warlords.

But lets be realisitc here: Islamic terrorist are weak, period. Terrorism is the tool of the weak vs. the strong. 9/11 stands out because it was the first time EVER that an act of terrorism actually killed so many people to be on par with the approved method of political violence, war. But war still beats out terrorism 99% of the time when it comes to what kills more people.

For example, the worst campaign of terrorism ever vs. Israel (the last 5 years) have claimed 1065 Israeli lives, according to the Israeli Gov.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims%20of%20Palestinian%20Violence%20and%20Terrorism%20sinc

Compare that to 2600 Israelis killed in a couple of months the last time Israel got into a serious shooting war with another state, in 1973.

http://www.settingtheworldtorights.com/node/136