The London bombings 7/7/05

[tulip 10]

Originally posted by DanSumption

Hmm: 1940-41 Blitz, 43,000 dead in total, 450 dead in one raid on a school. 200 dead in one raid on a tube station. 1944-45 V-Weapons campign: 115,000 killed.

 

OK, I suppose it is nice to have a minute or two's warning before you die, but I would say that if you compare 158,000 dead vs. about 70 we still have it relatively easy by comparison.

erm, now you are taking what I said out of context a little aren't you? New york bombing of the twin towers, The night club attack in Bali, the train attack in spain now the tube bombings in London. My point is with Terrorist attacks you don't know where they will strike next. We aren.t prepared, we can't see the enemy & the police and the military don't know where to look for them. I wasn't suggesting they had it easy during the two World Wars.

[DanSumption 10]

Originally posted by tulip

erm, now you are taking what I said out of context a little aren't you? New york bombing of the twin towers, The night club attack in Bali, the train attack in spain now the tube bombings in London. My point is with Terrorist attacks you don't know where they will strike next. We aren.t prepared, we can't see the enemy & the police and the military don't know where to look for them. I wasn't suggesting they had it easy during the two World Wars.

I'm not sure what context you want me to take that in. Robbie said the troubles we have now pale into insignificance compared with living through either World War, you disagreed.

 

I was just pointing out that during the Second World War, on this small island alone (which was not even the main "theatre of war") over 150,000 people died. You replied by mentioning a number of attacks which, over the course of the last five years, have killed around 3,500 people, spread over the entire world. I'd say that's a lot less scary, because not only were less people killed, they were also spread over a far larger geographical area, so the likelihood that any of us is going to become terrorist fodder tomorrow is pretty damn low.

 

Of course, the risk that they will get hold of nuclear or chemical weapons and move this whole thing onto a whole new level is scary.

[tulip 10]

Originally posted by DanSumption

I'm not sure what context you want me to take that in. Robbie said the troubles we have now pale into insignificance compared with living through either World War, you disagreed.

 

I was just pointing out that during the Second World War, on this small island alone (which was not even the main "theatre of war") over 150,000 people died. You replied by mentioning a number of attacks which, over the course of the last five years, have killed around 3,500 people, spread over the entire world. I'd say that's a lot less scary, because not only were less people killed, they were also spread over a far larger geographical area, so the likelihood that any of us is going to become terrorist fodder tomorrow is pretty damn low.

 

Of course, the risk that they will get hold of nuclear or chemical weapons and move this whole thing onto a whole new level is scary.

That was just a few. I wasn't going to write out a long list with figures next to them all, what purpose would it serve? No, I don't have figures for all the IRA attacks or attacks on embassies or Lockerby. I could look them up on the internet but who will it benefit? Also the advancement of technolgy and medical capabilities makes things different. I really don't want to get into nit picking and death tolls. The threat of nuclear capabilities frightens the life out of everyone so how can you say the threat of us becoming terrorist fodder is low? My point is, we just don't know and that is the scariest thing.

[DanSumption 10]

OK, I think I see your point now tulip (though I think you'll find that even if you did factor in IRA attacks, embassies, Lockerbie etc you'd be talking of thousands, possibly tens of thousands of deaths, still less than Britain in World War Two, and certainly a lot less than every country in every war).

 

But I still don't see the current situation as scarier than a World War. Admittedly the threat of a nuclear attack worries me a little, but then during WWII the Germans had scientists developing new ways of killing (the V1, the V2) and trying to come up with a nuclear weapon, so there was also an increasing risk from unknown factors.

 

The key difference is that during a war the attacks are relentless. Would you rather have the "predictability" of an attack every day, killing hundreds, or are you more scared of the unpredictable roughly yearly attack that may kill dozens or thousands? Personally I can live with the threat of occasional terrorist attacks if needs be, but I would seriously hate to be caught up in a war where every day new attacks hammered home the risk (or reality) of losing friends and loved ones.

[tulip 10]

Originally posted by DanSumption

OK, I think I see your point now tulip (though I think you'll find that even if you did factor in IRA attacks, embassies, Lockerbie etc you'd be talking of thousands, possibly tens of thousands of deaths, still less than Britain in World War Two, and certainly a lot less than every country in every war).

 

But I still don't see the current situation as scarier than a World War. Admittedly the threat of a nuclear attack worries me a little, but then during WWII the Germans had scientists developing new ways of killing (the V1, the V2) and trying to come up with a nuclear weapon, so there was also an increasing risk from unknown factors.

 

The key difference is that during a war the attacks are relentless. Would you rather have the "predictability" of an attack every day, killing hundreds, or are you more scared of the unpredictable roughly yearly attack that may kill dozens or thousands? Personally I can live with the threat of occasional terrorist attacks if needs be, but I would seriously hate to be caught up in a war where every day new attacks hammered home the risk (or reality) of losing friends and loved ones.

Dan, in an ideal situation I'd prefer NEITHER of your two scenerios!

 

Seriously, I'm not sure I can answer your question because I haven't lived through a world war. I think I origionally posted that I didn't think 'it paled in comparission to what people went through in the two world wars' mainly because I think its all relative. I'm sure people who lost loved ones due to terrorist attacks don't feel any less than people who lost family in WW1 & 2 or any other war for that matter. I don't think you can hold up comparisons of that nature. On American t.v it was said that the London bombing was minor compared to the New York bombing and I didn't like that either.

[PieR 10]

Today's BBC1 Breakfast News contained interviews with Geoff Porter, the driver of the Circle Line train that was passing the train which blew up as it blew up. It seems he told passengers within 2 minutes, "It was a bomb." Footage from the incident showed him walking through his train; he was heard being asked what happened - and this was the footage where the person doing the recording took a picture of his watch, showing the time at 8.53.

 

It occurs to me that some at least of the passengers who were told that there had been a power surge - not just verbally, seeing that posters were erected at Underground Stations - had they been told the truth (which Mr. Porter knew immediately) about bombs on public transport, would not have jumped on the Number 30 bus, or would have passed on the warning.

 

What I'm getting at is that the half an hour or so of wrong information cost lives.

[Guest]

Originally posted by tulip

I don't think so. During the war the fear of attacks was dreadful but people knew to expect something to happen at any given moment. Spirits were high because people had each other for moral support. In cities children were sent to the 'safety' of the countryside and their parents could be pretty sure that their offspring would be safe. With terrorist attacks, no-one knows what to expect, where it will happen or how & when it will happen. The world is a huge place, now everyone everywhere is living a life of uncertainty. Before anyone says 'yes but we could get run over by a bus tomorrow, so we will carry on until our time is up' Anything could happen to anyone of us at any time but we don't want to raise the odds of it happening by adding more threats to our already fragile lives.

 

It would be nice to see the 'infighting' and suspicion end so everyone, no matter what their, religion, colour or creed could give each other support:|

 

I can't accept that. Every night during the blitz Londoners and Sheffielders feared for their lives.

 

There is nothing to fear at the moment. I f you do then you are just causing yourself a problem. less than 60 people were killed out of 60 millions. hardly a big worry is it?

[tulip 10]

Originally posted by robbie

I can't accept that. Every night during the blitz Londoners and Sheffielders feared for their lives.

 

There is nothing to fear at the moment. I f you do then you are just causing yourself a problem. less than 60 people were killed out of 60 millions. hardly a big worry is it?

Yes, it is a worry - a big worry! 60 people in London alone! You are totally missing the point. You can't make comparisons like that. It would be like me saying to a local farmer who has just lost his arm 'oh, you are really lucky, my grandfather lost both his legs'. There are more places than Sheffield and London that were affected by the Blitz, just like there are more places than London that are under threat from terrorist organisations.

[rubydazzler 11]

tulip, i don't know why but you seem to be getting this incident out of all proportion. It was an inhumane and ultimately senseless act that has cost at least 50 people their lives and countless others their health and/or peace of mind.

 

But by posting repeatedly in this vein and refuting all attempts to point out the difference between say the Blitz and a terrorist bomb attack ... you're doing exactly what these people want ...

 

Most of us, especially the people most closely concerned are just getting on with their lives as best they can. Don't let it get to you ... you're not even in the country and they're hardly likely to target Idaho, are they?

[DanSumption 10]

Originally posted by tulip

It would be like me saying to a local farmer who has just lost his arm 'oh, you are really lucky, my grandfather lost both his legs'.

More like saying to a local farmer who has just received a mosquito bite "you're lucky, my grandfather was attacked by a swarm of killer bees".

 

London, Sheffield, the World, wherever: the numbers of people killed and injured in terrorist attacks is orders of magnitude less than those killed in war.

[DanSumption 10]

Originally posted by rubydazzler

Most of us, especially the people most closely concerned are just getting on with their lives as best they can.

Most of us. We are not afraid, but the Americans, it seems, are.

[tulip 10]

Originally posted by rubydazzler

tulip, i don't know why but you seem to be getting this incident out of all proportion. It was an inhumane and ultimately senseless act that has cost at least 50 people their lives and countless others their health and/or peace of mind.

 

But by posting repeatedly in this vein and refuting all attempts to point out the difference between say the Blitz and a terrorist bomb attack ... you're doing exactly what these people want ...

 

Most of us, especially the people most closely concerned are just getting on with their lives as best they can. Don't let it get to you ... you're not even in the country and they're hardly likely to target Idaho, are they?

Maybe if feel a little stressed that my sister works in that area and by chance was out of town on a training course when the bombs went off but I didn't know for hours if she was involved in the bombing or not. I don't let the threat of terrorism rule my life, I carry on as normal. Maybe on a day when Boise has been evacuated because of a bomb scare we have to find the next biggest city to do our shopping in, it's inconvenient but what the heck. I don't worry too much about the nuclear power plant in Idaho being a target either.

 

I take your point, yes there is a massive difference between a world war and a terrorist strike but it won't stop me from being concerned for my friends and family in the UK or in other cities in this country.

 

I'm getting on with my life like the rest of you. I'm not going to say to people it is harder for you to lose someone in a terrorist attack than a car accident. I don't think the comparisons are fair to people who have lost loved ones. That was my point. I didn't mean to give the impression that everyone should be hiding in bomb shelters all the time - they didn't in the Blitz either.