7 explosions, 7th month, 7th day. Coincidence? I doubt it. [I'm pretty sure it was 7 explosions at least...] I read that Canada could be the next target. What do you think?
Pfft. If we're a target, we're low on the list. They warned Denmark and Italy to move troops out of Iraq. When they refuse to, those places will most likely be hit next.
I'm praying that this is the end of it. Yes, I am aware that it is unlikely, but I still pray it's over.
Can you think of anything that would give them reason to attack us? Yeah, me neither. [/b][/quote] Why'd they attack London then? I don't see much of a reason, other than the fact that they won the 2012 Olympics.
Can you think of anything that would give them reason to attack us? Yeah, me neither. [/b][/quote] I've long thought that terrorists dont attack solely based on motive. They want to attack in places where there will be a lot of people, so sheer panic ensues and people start to worry. That's why they hit the WTC, Pentagon and London's transporation systems. All are places where mass groups of people are located.
Why'd they attack London then? I don't see much of a reason, other than the fact that they won the 2012 Olympics. [/b][/quote] England has troops in Iraq. AFAIK, Canada doesn't (they stay out of shit, good idea). The war in Iraq is probably whats pissing these terrorists off. I'd be very surprised if Canada gets attacked, they're the last country that should be worried
But what does attackin civilians prove, IMO if they have a prob with bush or blair why aint they jus attackin the whitehouse and stuff like that. The thing that has amazed me the most is readin messages of support from all over the world, its a shame that it takes something this negative to make the world come together
They want to show they have power. They cant just highjack a plane now or walk with C4's into the pentagon. Everything is double secured.
England has troops in Iraq. AFAIK, Canada doesn't (they stay out of shit, good idea). The war in Iraq is probably whats pissing these terrorists off. I'd be very surprised if Canada gets attacked, they're the last country that should be worried [/b][/quote] Yeah, that attacks in Madrid, London, etc, are, in my opinion, politically motivated. Like Todd said, since we aren't directly involved in the War on Iraq (I beleive we're providing relief. I'd have to check on that though), we aren't really a viable target, you know what I mean?
Yeah, that attacks in Madrid, London, etc, are, in my opinion, politically motivated. Like Todd said, since we aren't directly involved in the War on Iraq (I beleive we're providing relief. I'd have to check on that though), we aren't really a viable target, you know what I mean? [/b][/quote] From what I understand and have read, we have nothing to do with Iraq. No peacekeeping, no troops, no relief money. We're mainly concentrated on Afghanistan. Of course the London and Spain bombings are over the Iraq war.
Why'd they attack London then? I don't see much of a reason, other than the fact that they won the 2012 Olympics. [/b][/quote] Terrorist attacks can't be planned for a few days, which in your mind, happen, if it was indeed motivated by the 2012 Olympics. It's obviously because of Iraq. The next targets are actually Denmark and Italy, not Canada.
Terrorist attacks can't be planned for a few days, which in your mind, happen, if it was indeed motivated by the 2012 Olympics. It's obviously because of Iraq. [/b][/quote] Unless, of course, the bombs were planted a week or so earlier in both London and Paris? Unlikely though, I guess...
Ok, unfortunately i do not have time to read the entire topic. However, i have had time enough to read that many of you are confused as to why civilians are targeted. Well, firstly, the war in Iraq has devestated civilian lives there. But, on a deeper note, the terrorists are smarter than that. Consider this, the G8 conference was happening parralel to the explosions was it not? So, where was most of the security/attention? Not on the tube and buses i'll tell you now. Also, by choosing multiple targets, the terrorist have made it much harder for our ambulance crews to treat and get to the casualties. Plus, if you think about it, they can cause much more damage/help thier own cause by attacking civilian targets. First, it puts pressure on the government: if you kill the government, there aint really shit they can do, is there? It puts pressure on the government to stand down to the terrorsist, henceforth fueling the terrorists drive as not only have they got what they were demanding, but as they can now attack again with impunity. On top of all this, many non-muslim people automaticly say 'Those Muslim bastards' or some thing along those lines. Now, think how the Muslims are going to feel about this. If it annoys them beyond annoyance, it may push them to fight for the terrorists cause. It is basicly a cheap recruitment drive/stockholm syndrome on a very very basic level.
I think the ambulance crew got lucky because it was pretty close together. It could be worser. I never been to London though, so I dont really know if it was close
I think the ambulance crew got lucky because it was pretty close together. It could be worser. I never been to London though, so I dont really know if it was close [/b][/quote] In effect, it would be more lethal if the explosions were closer together. It would create a closer knit web of choas that would make it even hard to tend to the casualties.