Explosions in London?

AnnieDreams · Post by **AnnieDreams** » 7/15/2005, 11:58 am

I don't think it would have been hard for them to conceal it from their families. Who needs "bomb-making manuals" when you have the internet? One thing that I've learned from watching too many crime dramas is that a lot of things explode, and that it's not very hard to make them do that. Things like weed killer, fertilizer, pain-killers, pcp, etc. could be used to make bombs.

Dr. Hobo · Post by **Dr. Hobo** » 7/15/2005, 2:44 pm

yep a lot of "bomb making supplies" can be bought any gardening centre..

as for "suicide bombing materials"
that'd be a back pack
or a large jacket
but in this case, a back pack.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 7/15/2005, 3:07 pm

Corey wrote:
closeyoureyes wrote:
Corey wrote:I'll probably take heat for pointing this out, but all the suspects, though British nationals, were Muslim.

It's irrelevant though. The Islam religion does not condone nor encourage violence of any kind.

So? That doesn't make it irrelevant.

Yes it does. If it had of been all caucasian suspects you wouldn't have mentioned it. It matters that they are people, not what colour their skin is, or what religion they belong to.

People caused those terrorist attacks, not Islam.

VazValium · Post by **VazValium** » 7/16/2005, 4:58 am

i think the point was that people who were muslim caused these attacks

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/16/2005, 9:41 am

closeyoureyes wrote:
Corey wrote:
closeyoureyes wrote:
Corey wrote:I'll probably take heat for pointing this out, but all the suspects, though British nationals, were Muslim.

It's irrelevant though. The Islam religion does not condone nor encourage violence of any kind.

So? That doesn't make it irrelevant.

Yes it does. If it had of been all caucasian suspects you wouldn't have mentioned it. It matters that they are people, not what colour their skin is, or what religion they belong to.

People caused those terrorist attacks, not Islam.

Oh is that right? What if there was a string of abortion clinic bombings? Do you think it would be irrelevant if all the suspects were radical christians?

"Some totally random people bombed an abortion clinic today. Coincidentally, it was the third time this week. Police don't believe there is a link between the events considering it was just people who did it. Tonight at 11."

Oh I have another one. How about all the Priests that molested children?

"A certain guy, his profession irrelevant, was caught molesting children..."

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 7/16/2005, 11:29 am

Explain how it IS relevant then.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 7/16/2005, 12:41 pm

uhh he just did... :roll:

He's not stereotryping. He's merely stated a fact.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/16/2005, 12:42 pm

It IS relevant because it narrows down the search for others involved. Do you really think it is mere coincidence that all the suspects were Muslim? That was just by chance? No. Sure the fact of them being Muslim isn't the ONLY factor, but it is a subset of a larger group (people as you would say) that needs to be further narrowed. Al-Qaida maybe? In fact, the paper today is saying the blasts appear to have links to Al-Qaida (or is that irrelevent?). It is relevant because authorities can search for like-minded individuals and can rationalize why, what, and how it happened. If everyone had the attitude "so-and-so don't commit crimes, PEOPLE commit crimes" then who knows where we would be.

Now you can try to explain how it isn't relevant, but don't use the whole "Because the Muslim religion doesn't support killing" argument. Yes, we all know that but for some reason these Muslims DID kill so what happened?

Soozy · Post by **Soozy** » 7/17/2005, 2:53 am

The person that's been arrested in relation with the bombings is called Naveed

According to my newspaper yesterday:
- they've found so much extra explosives in the bomb factory place they were using that they think there might have been another bomber who pulled out at the last minute.
- they're wondering if maybe they didn't realise they were going to be suicide bombs until quite late - they bought return train tickets and bought a pay and display parking ticket for the car they left at the station.
- they're pretty sure the bus bomb guy was meant to get on a train going north - but the line was closed. Apparently he wasn't very bright so they think he just wandered around for an hour not knowing what to do, and then somehow got on the bus. The guy in the paper thought maybe he was trying to disarm the bomb rather than set it off. But we'll probably never know.

nikki4982 · Post by **nikki4982** » 7/17/2005, 5:07 am

A friend of mine online had a friend who was one of the people killed.

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 7/17/2005, 8:43 am

Corey wrote:It IS relevant because it narrows down the search for others involved. Do you really think it is mere coincidence that all the suspects were Muslim? That was just by chance? No. Sure the fact of them being Muslim isn't the ONLY factor, but it is a subset of a larger group (people as you would say) that needs to be further narrowed. Al-Qaida maybe? In fact, the paper today is saying the blasts appear to have links to Al-Qaida (or is that irrelevent?). It is relevant because authorities can search for like-minded individuals and can rationalize why, what, and how it happened. If everyone had the attitude "so-and-so don't commit crimes, PEOPLE commit crimes" then who knows where we would be.

Now you can try to explain how it isn't relevant, but don't use the whole "Because the Muslim religion doesn't support killing" argument. Yes, we all know that but for some reason these Muslims DID kill so what happened?

If you look at every major terrorist attack in the last 20 years. Guess which religion the perpetrators of 95% of them practised.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/18/2005, 6:05 am

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to make a sweeping statement like that.

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 7/18/2005, 8:07 am

Its not really all that sweeping. Of the global attacks, 95% of htem were carried out by so called Muslims. Of course you have your localised terrorists (ETA, IRA, PLO etc) but those who launch attacks at foreign targets, from places not within the realms of their disputes are muslims. And they are the single biggest threat to global security. Even Canadians think so.

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/200001e.htm

*edit*

That came out wrong. I missed a sentence in there. I meant religious extremism.

Post by **xjsb125** » 7/18/2005, 9:11 am

I don't think you should state that Muslims are the single biggest threat to global security. By doing so you are grouping in everyone who is Muslim. It is a very sweeping statement, and an unfair one at that. There are people of that faith on this board. Are they a threat to global security? You can't single out a religion and it's followers as being terrorist. I would think you would know better and word your arugment better as well.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 7/18/2005, 1:02 pm

I agree completely. It is relevant to the point of them being affiliated/whatever with Al Quaeda, but you have to watch how you word things. Islam is a perfectly acceptable and non-violent religion, one which millions of people follow without incident. You cannot let a maximum of maybe 1000-2000 people dictate the way an entire religion is percieved and stereotyped as, especially when Islam has over a billion followers(Correct me if i'm wrong).

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/18/2005, 2:42 pm

What part of "The suspects were Muslim" is worded incorrectly?

VazValium · Post by **VazValium** » 7/18/2005, 4:49 pm

closeyoureyes, have you even read any of the holy book? maybe then you won't keep on saying what you do

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 7/18/2005, 8:13 pm

Which Holy Book are you referring too? The Bible? The Quar'an? Well I can't remember how to spell any of the other Holy Books from other religions. But which book are you referring too? Also what part of what she said goes against the teachings of any of them?

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 7/19/2005, 12:13 am

If your argument is that The Qu'ran is violent or whatever, you've obviously never read the New Testament, because its VERY violent, and you never see Christianity getting accused of being pro-violence.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 7/19/2005, 7:41 am

Yeah. Never been a series of Crusades or anything like that.