The Bobcat Nation

This was an extreme downer on my ride in to work today:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161768,00.html

Friggin' cowardly a-holes.

Bay Area Cat wrote:This was an extreme downer on my ride in to work today:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161768,00.html

Friggin' cowardly a-holes.

Hadn't seen that yet, horrible. Came into this thread figuring it would be about the selection of London as the host for 2012 games, definately a downer to see some terrible act like this instead.

such a shame, I do hope that the US backs the UK, they deserve our support. after all this is their 9/11.

-rebecca

Not only does the US need to back the UK, but other nations that are sitting on the fence need to dig in and support the fight against terrrorism.

Fortunately, Londoners are pretty tough people. They certainly won't do a national paranoid freak-out like we did after our attacks. (Subway system use will probably drop off more here than there as a result of the attack on them). They'll hunker down and weather the storm in stoic British fashion ... while quietly redoubling their international efforts to hunt down terrorist cells. I'm sure we will be more than willing to assist with the last part, along with the rest of the civilized world.

sad story..very sad

Side-point here, BAC,

Londoners WERE tough folks but the last time they faced anything remotely like this was 60+ years ago. Two generations don't know what war or conflict mean, with the exception of their involvement in the Gulf now & 14 years ago. It will be interesting to see how today's Londoners ultimately react to this tragedy.

I'm not trying to minimize this attack, but it strikes me as more along the scale of the original WTC attack in the 90's than what we experienced in September, 2001. I'm guessing the memories of today's events in London will fade rather quickly by comparison. With that in mind, please read my "What exactly happened on 9/11/01?" thread; I'm curious of people's thoughts...

The British (and Londoners in particular) have been dealing with the IRA for the last 30 years, so they are not new to this sort of thing (terrorist bombings and lots of dead innocents).

And in the event 60 years ago they nearly had their entire city destroyed by a wave after wave of bombers, and that kind of memory and toughness doesn't fade quickly.

We as a country have simply never had to deal with anything even remotely close to either of those types of realities until 911, which I think is why we will see a distinctly different reaction from the Brits than we did from us. I'm guessing that people won't be cancelling all of their travel plans and bankrupting the travel industry there like we did here.

I'm with you on the curiosity, though. I'm hoping to see the Brits rise up and show us the kind of gusto that we've come to expect from them -- assertive, but measured and thoughtful in their actions. I think they are in good hands with Tony Blair, even though my friends in London don't have as much faith in him as most American seemingly do. The other day one of my friends over there told me that he had a theory that Tony "fancied" Bush, and that's why he did everything that Bush wanted him to do despite his better judgment. Maybe that can be the subject of MM's next film.

BAC,

The IRA may have racked up a sizable body count over the decades but they've NEVER orchestrated a single attack plan with as much death and destruction as we saw on 9/11. To me, the IRA is like arthritis to the Brits; constant and nagging, but not serious or threatening enough to warrant a MAJOR response.

Again, I'm not minimizing the events of today in London, but I don't think America would have reacted nearly as severly to 9/11 if it had simply been a few subway cars & busses, with less than 100 dead. As I said, this was pretty much what we saw in the initial WTC bombings and that attack barely registered on the national consciousness a few weeks after the fact. That said, you are right that the Brits won't "overreact" but again, the scales are GROSSLY different and I don't believe our response to the 9/11 attacks was an overreaction.

If 4 planes had been used as missiles in England today, with 3000 dead and Buckingham Palace & Big Ben damaged or destroyed, I'm confident the reaction there would be nearly identical to what you saw here 4 years ago...

El Gato - to take any life in a terror attack is too many. I think the UK being used to IRA attacks will indeed stand firm and act thoughtfully but with vigor. I do not see Tony backing down from his support of the US or with regards to Iraq.

as to comparing it to 9/11 that's apples and oranges. both are terrible. Just like losing a life today in Iraq is just as devastating to families now a days as it was to those families that lost loved ones in the Gulf, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, and the Civil War. Life is life, and the loss of any life is terrible. although the numbers may not run as high today as they did on 9/11 I hope the UK and it's citizens the best in overcoming this act of terror.

I hope that the US gives the full backing needed by the UK, as they gave it to us.

-rebecca

El_Gato wrote:BAC,

The IRA may have racked up a sizable body count over the decades but they've NEVER orchestrated a single attack plan with as much death and destruction as we saw on 9/11. To me, the IRA is like arthritis to the Brits; constant and nagging, but not serious or threatening enough to warrant a MAJOR response.

Again, I'm not minimizing the events of today in London, but I don't think America would have reacted nearly as severly to 9/11 if it had simply been a few subway cars & busses, with less than 100 dead. As I said, this was pretty much what we saw in the initial WTC bombings and that attack barely registered on the national consciousness a few weeks after the fact. That said, you are right that the Brits won't "overreact" but again, the scales are GROSSLY different and I don't believe our response to the 9/11 attacks was an overreaction.

If 4 planes had been used as missiles in England today, with 3000 dead and Buckingham Palace & Big Ben damaged or destroyed, I'm confident the reaction there would be nearly identical to what you saw here 4 years ago...

i agree with you on this but it was a terroristic attack and should not be tolerated. where is blare on this one? all he did was release a public statement...i do hope for more since it was his country that was attacked

Bay Area Cat wrote: We as a country have simply never had to deal with anything even remotely close to either of those types of realities until 911, which I think is why we will see a distinctly different reaction from the Brits than we did from us. I'm guessing that people won't be cancelling all of their travel plans and bankrupting the travel industry there like we did here.

One thing that I noticed was that after awhile of reporting you started to hear politicians and “experts” on terrorism say that all the people in Europe and North America must stand fast and not overreact. They were speaking in most part about people not hurting the economy by acting irrationally. You could see it in the American Market, stokes actually rose slightly. In Europe the stocks rebounded wonderfully. I think that after 9-11 the politicians and media realized that they have to reassure the citizens that all is well. They convinced all the citizens by saying that the terrorists main objective is to hurt our economies, and so we must not let them be successful.

mq,

You reminded me of something I've thought about in the past.

I wonder if Osama & his Al Qaida buddies really foresaw the "lasting" damage the 9/11 attacks would bring about. I've heard a number of experts discuss whether or not the bad guys planned or even thought the Twin Towers would crumble as they did; I wonder if OBL anticipated that the attacks would cripple our economy as they did.

The problem is that now they DO expect, or at least hope, that their actions will bring about far more damage than just the loss of life & destruction of property. Unfortunately, the aftermath of 9/11 has given them a model for it; that's why I'm surprised, even with our heightened awareness & security, that there have not been MORE attacks. Maybe "our guys" are protecting us all better than we can comprehend...?

Good points and questions, El Gato. I am also wondering if, even if the level of destruction of the WTC bombing is replicated in a future attack, the impact on our country will never again be as severe as the 9-11 attack? It seems like we were taken by complete surprise as a country, and the impact was more one of shock and a loss of a sense of invulnerability than a reaction to the direct loss of life.

Going forward, if there was another attack, I don't think that full impact will ever be the same. We've already dealt with the realization of knowing that it can happen, and although it would certainly impact us on a personal level, it probably wouldn't shock the economy beyond the actual damage.

Of course, it the attack was a nuclear strike, all bets are off. I just hope they stick to traditional techniques and don't end up getting something that can kill people on a scale that I don't want to even imagine.

I agree.

Anything on the "scale" of what we've already seen is highly unlikely to duplicate the lasting effects of 9/11. The scary part is that OBL no doubt realizes this & knows that the only way to "get our attention" in the future is with something BIGGER than 9/11.

I think this fact is a big reason why the Flathead, Bozeman, and the Missoula/Bitteroot areas are exploding (no pun intended). I think a lot of people in urban areas feel like they are walking around with a bullseye on their backs and want desperately to get out of the crosshairs...

This article has some encouraging sentiments. It seems to me that for the violence to ultimately stop, the Muslim community around the world is going to have to be the ones driving the change in attitudes. Maybe that tide is turning in the right direction? Probably not, but it's a nice thought.



http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07 ... index.html

I don't think there is any doubt they knew what would happen to our economy. That's why they attacked New York and my understanding is the bombs in London all went off around the financial district. D.C. was in the hopes of maybe killing off a big wig and sending a statement to military leaders.

I just listened to an interesting interview from a terrorism specialist. He says that the attacks on London and "relatively minor damage" shows that Al Quada "if anything" is much weaker than thought.

Not sure I buy it but any thoughts.

Sounds weak to me (what the "expert" said anyway).

I read a book that some guy wrote about bin laden, and in that book, he more or less quote bin laden as saying that the way to defeat America is to bankrupt it AND destroy the government by causing a civil war.

Bin laden said that that's why they hit the Trade Center. They wanted to cause an economic catastrophy. They wanted to hit the center of government in hopes that the country would fall into anarchy if they killed enough high level officials (I think they were reading too much Clancy at that time).

So, two things are for sure. We are spending billions on chasing our own shadow, but our Federal government pretty much runs in spite of itself.

I find particularly encouraging how quickly the British police counter terror squads moved in on Leeds and Luton, following up on leads.