portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

corporate dominance | imperialism & war

BREAKING: At least 40 killed, 300 hurt in London bombings

Blair said the "terrorist attacks" were clearly designed to coincide with the opening of the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland.
BREAKING: At least 40 killed, 300 hurt in London bombings Jul. 7th, 2005 @ 08:12 am
Four London Blasts Kill 40, Injure 300
By JANE WARDELL, Writer 13 minutes ago

Three blasts rocked the London subway and one tore open a packed double-decker bus during the morning rush hour Thursday, sending bloodied victims fleeing in what a shaken Prime Minister Tony Blair called "barbaric" terrorist attacks. A U.S. law enforcement official said at least 40 people were killed and London hospitals reported more than 300 injured

The U.S. official spoke on condition of anonymity because British officials have yet to make public the death toll. U.S. authorities learned of the number from their British counterparts, according to the official.

Blair said the "terrorist attacks" were clearly designed to coincide with the opening of the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland.

Continued:

 http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777/#entry_782346

or

 http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777/782346.html



MARC PARENT

CRIMES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS

 http://www.livejournal.com/~mparent7777

 http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777

homepage: homepage: http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777


Another neocon attack!! 07.Jul.2005 07:33

zdr

and we will be led down the path of war against Iran or some other victim. Maybe the English aren't as gullible as the Americans and will see through this murderous ruse...

We have a problem... 07.Jul.2005 08:05

Phil

Around this issue, we must be careful. It is a terrible, terrible, thing for innocent civilians to be killed, anywhere. The problem we now face is being torn between sadness while at the same time being on the lookout for the same nationalism that struck the USA after 9-11, and led us down the path to war and the stirrping of civil liberties. A complicated issue which I'm sure politicians all over the world are alreay trying to capitalize on, we must be observant and critical, but do not forget that these are real dead people here, and that they have families and lives, and watch how cynical you become, because at a point, you become as bad as those trying to gain political momentum from the event.

war 07.Jul.2005 08:25

war

Realize that your political views dont exempt you from the next attack. What rights have been stripped name one of your rights that have been violated, just one please

I will just say that... 07.Jul.2005 08:43

Sephiroth

Now more than ever it is vital we fight against policies that incite this kind of barbarism. While the current terrorists almost certainly cannot be "killed with kindness," the terrorist threat CAN. By extending our solidarity not to the extremists, but to the common peoples of the third world and the Arab world, to support them in their class struggles, their labor struggles and such. Not to condemn these movements as barbaric, because that just invites truly barbaric behavior down the road. It's a self-fulfilling thing.

Americans need to let the rest of the world know that we do not support our President's policies, that we are on the side of the "little people." That we are sorry that our own nation's foreign meddling has helped to create terrorist havens, and even trained some of them before they defected.

Ugly. 07.Jul.2005 08:45

Jesus Christ GOD of war

Payback is a bitch. I feel badly for the Brits. I feel badly for the Spanish. And I'd feel badly for the Germans and French and Italians if they were hit in a similar manner. I just hope they are smart enough to not head down the fascist hole that BushCo has taken the US.

It was IRAN's fault! 07.Jul.2005 09:02

Cassandra Complex

duplicitous, opportunistic politicians trying to pin the blame for these blasts on Iran coming in 3...2...1...
"It was Iran's fault! Their president took hostages in the US embassy in 1979!"

Lots of folks (including me) are not surprised 07.Jul.2005 09:43

Jody Paulson

Cassandra's right. Scott Ritter predicted a confrontation with Iran in June:
 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8130.htm
Probably because of oil and Iran wanting to take control of it's own financial destiny:  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html
 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8354.htm

Here's our ready-made excuse.

Read this:
Galloway Wary Of Staged Terror Attack As Pretext For Iran Invasion
 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/010605gallowaywary.htm

nukes 07.Jul.2005 10:32

could be

the next phase Hey Dems! Wake the Fuck Up! Impeach this maniac RIGHT NOW!!!!

but really, why must people suffer? 07.Jul.2005 10:48

rainmaker

first of all i want to say that whoever did it, I feel sorry for those who died and got injured in the blast. second, the whoever did it are morons. and thirdly I wouldn't be suprised if some confused looking arab/arabs appear(s) in the news being accused for the blast with all the evidence all pointing to him, and create the various links that points to this certain country for "sheltering" terrorist and "supporting" terror groups.

but really, i really feel sorry.

You Scared The Crap Outta Me 07.Jul.2005 10:54

Sheyna

Jody's article about the Galloway prediction scared the living crap outta me. Thank you for posting it. Being alert and informed is a good thing in these crazy times. Whoa.

It's the fault of bush and blair. 07.Jul.2005 12:49

duh

The blood is on the hands of Bush and Blair. Not directly, as many of the more conspiracy oriented posters might think. Rather, they are responsible because they committed their countries to a war they cannot win. They provoked this fight, fired the first shot if you will. The smart thing to do would be what spain did. Say "enough is enough" and get the hell out of Iraq. Perhaps had Blair not been so eager to follow Bush into the quagmire, today would have been just another morning for London commuters.

Who benefits? 07.Jul.2005 12:55

Tony Blair's dog

That's the only question needed at the moment.

My question is: why the tube?? 07.Jul.2005 12:59

Jody Paulson

LONDON, England (CNN) -- A previously unknown group calling itself the "Secret Organization group al Qaeda Organization in Europe" released a statement Thursday claiming responsibility for the subway and bus bombings in London earlier in the day.
... The statement said Islam and "Arabism" could "receive the glad tidings."
 http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/explosions.claim/index.html

What many Americans may not realize is that there are close to a million Muslims living in London, about 8.5% of its population. The majory of British citizens are against the war in Iraq.  http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/advocacy/protest/iraq/2004/1109poll.htm

Why would real terrorists choose ordinary people as targets? What do they gain from this? It just doesn't make sense.

Is this affecting the MAX at all? 07.Jul.2005 14:23

Scotty B.

This is kind of a completely selfish question in regards to what happened in London - because it is horrible that so many people died there, just like the loss of innocent life in Madrid and Baghdad, Fallujah, New York, Jenin...violence is always a bad thing.

Relating it to Portland though - I read that the "terror alert" for the nation's mass transit systems has been raised from yellow to orange. I'm going to be riding MAX tomorrow, so I was wondering if anything seems to be different on there? IE, are cops harassing people, ect.? I'm a little worried, because I'm going to have a bulging backpack with me, and I don't want that to be a problem. If anyone knows how this is affecting our local transit system, it would be good to know about...

To Jody 07.Jul.2005 15:26

Binyamin freebinyamin@hotmail.com

Why terrorist tactics?

By "terrorism" I mean very simply politically-motivated violence directed against non-combatants. Thus, although the word "terrorism" has come to possess all sorts of orwellian connotations, the actual term itself still describes attacks on civilians like those in London. It must be understood that states have always maintained the monopoly on terrorism. The Iraq War is terrorism. The massacres committed by the West and its client states for centuries is terrorism, under the above definition. So the greatest terrorists of all are always those who hold governmental power. Nonetheless, those who resist the far, far greater terrorism of the US, for instance, by intentionally killing innocents are also terrorists - less impactful when it comes to casualties they inflict, but often just as vehement.

As Noam Chomsky notes, people use force because it often works. This is obviously true of the oppressor. But it's also true of those who fight back. As far as immediate goals are concerned, such as kicking out occupiers, violence, including terrorism, is generally successful. It may not bring true genuine liberation, and it might not end oppression as such, but it often can stop a particular oppression. It wasn't really marches in the US that ended the Vietnam War, for example. It was mainly the decades of armed resistance by the Vietnamese people that made their own country ungovernable for the French and later the Americans. The cost was horrific - over three million lost their lives - but factually speaking, it worked.

As far as why that particular kind of force is used, the kind that targets civilians, there is more than one factor. Mahmood Mamdani writes in Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, that it was the context of the Cold War that fostered the current terrorist response we see today. After the defeat of the US in Vietnam, the Pentagon sought to continue its imperialism primarily through the use of proxies - the Contras, the Mujahadeen, etc. Associated with this transition were some new developments. First it furthered a climate of secrecy and illegality; secondly, it gave rise to entire covert armies, answerable only to the US agenda of the decade, then abandoned. One of these "illegitimate" armed forces, that which fought the Russians in Afghanistan, produced Osama bin Laden. Once some of these groups turned against the US in the 90's they expanded on what the Palestinians discovered after the First Intifada - that it's a lot more difficult to destroy tanks and soldiers that increase their armor over time. Therefore it objectively makes sense to begin attacking "soft targets," namely, neighborhoods instead of military bases, and civilians instead of troops. Not only are they not protected, but they are vastly more abundant and generally possess far greater psychological significance to the enemy. The ultimate soft target is the child - a fact not lost on certain Palestinian groups, for instance, when they fight against the greater terrorism inflicted by the Israelis.

Once this "natural selection" process is in play, the psychological and ideological barriers to committing massacres fall. There is indeed a cult of death among some segments of the anti-imperial armed resistance, often butressed by theocratic and/or anti-Jewish ideologies. The rapture involved in flying jets into skyscrapers, "the will to DO that," to paraphrase Col. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now, has partially replaced the more constructive aspects of older resistance movements, such as Pan-Arab nationalism and socialism (though as Edward Said and others have noted, these too had their fatal faults).
What this kind of anti-US terrorism ultimately suggests is that movements like Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc, have a strongly fascistic quality. They are not liberatory organizations, despite having a liberatory cause. This fact is not refuted by the claim that these kinds of Al Qaeda attacks are actually Reichstag-like inside operations by the United States in order to get us into war. Even if that claim turns out to be correct, though I am not at all sure that it is, atrocious tactics have been used by many groups for decades. Terrorism from certain groups in the Arab world didn't just appear out of nowhere in 2001. It practically predates the very existence of the neoconservatives, let alone their real ascension to power after Clinton; thus even if these larger, more recent incidents are fronts of the CIA, etc, they would only fool people because there is a very genuine fascistic historical context of tactics that the neocons can take advantage of. This is true even though the larger context of the imperialist Cold War fostered the use of those tactics.

What's the alternative? The real force of the people must enter the conflict as a third party, grassroots community-based fifth columns inside both the terroristic imperialist side and the terroristic resistance side. Look at the models of the Zapatistas and the Revolutionary Association of the Women on Afghanistan. It's time to stop just admiring and to accelerate our building. As Arundhati Roy says, "we must consider ourselves at war." Emphasis on "we."