Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Thinking of Our British Friends

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 3:51:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

I just wanted to express my concern for our British friends. I hope none
were affected by today's terrorist attacks. It would be good if you could
check in and let us know you're OK.

--
Walt Hanks
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 4:46:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

> David Littlewood wrote:
> []
> > There is a supposition around here that the mobile networks were
> > switched off immediately the atrocities became clear. ISTR that some
> > or all of the Madrid train bombs were triggered by mobile phones.
> > Don't have any authoritative source for this though.
>
> The BBC reported that emergency services were given priority.

The BBC, like all state-run media, does what it is told. Would there
be an operational difference even if the BBC's statement reflected the
truth?

> Your thoughts will be appreciated by the friends and families of all those
> concerned. Thanks.

I doubt any of them know "we" exist, and fewer than that are going to
be rummaging around on the net looking for messages of condolence.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 5:19:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:

> One way to improve a terrorist attack (eg, increase the terror) would
> be to do what you suggest, turn off all forms of mobile communication
> and get the panic really going. This would be a crazy idea.

But you turn it all off and get your media to say that "Emergency
services are being given priority." -- and the sheeple are calmed.
(Anyone who notes that emergency services have their own communication
systems will be hunted down and dealt with as a terrorist.)

Or something.

I doubt anything was turned off myself (that would require a savvy that
just isn't hirable by a government), since the system loads more or
less did the same thing.

> Transatlantic capacity was a problem for a short time too (my
> experience only, haven't seen any reports) even for land-line calls -
> the exact same thing happened during 9/11.

Anything out of the ordinary will get people on the phones. The 2003
August power collapse (Canada/USA) jammed cell and non-cell phone lines
for a few hours. As you say, nothing new here.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 7:09:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:

>>>But you turn it all off and get your media to say that "Emergency
>>>services are being given priority." -- and the sheeple are calmed.
>> ^^^^^^
>>
>>AGGGH!, You've been reading the conspiracy NGs again haven't you?
>
> Now I've moved the hats, it might make more sense...
> ...or maybe not.

But the word "sheeple" is just so poetic!

http://www.wordspy.com/words/sheeple.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple

I admit, though, I do dip that digital bucket into the conspiracy
news-streams at times. Who can resist their insane allure? (I
sometimes watch TeeVee while in hotels too; MythBusters is
irresistible!) Have you read RAW's "Illuminati" trilogy? A sinister
tome, as every word is both absolutely false and incredibly true at the
same time. (See
http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/SNAFU-principle.html)
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 7:28:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Canongirly wrote:

> Thanks Walt....one day all these extremeist will realise that if the
> Luftwaffe couldn't break our resolve, [...]

Let's not be too jingoistic, shall we?

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Framework/ch05.ht...
(etc)

Basically: if it wasn't for the USA (and some tactical/strategic
mis-steps by the Germans), England would have succummbed to the Nazi's
in WWII fairly early on, whether or not you had "resolve".
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 10:00:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:51:44 -0400, "Walt Hanks"
<walthanks@comcast.net> wrote:

>I just wanted to express my concern for our British friends. I hope none
>were affected by today's terrorist attacks. It would be good if you could
>check in and let us know you're OK.

Nice sentiment, unfortunately everyone is affected in some way.

BTW, If anyone is interested in how deranged some people are, you
should take a quick look at what the looooonies in the conspiracy
NG's are claiming.

I don't think anyone has yet blamed Rudolph Giuliani, who was both in
NY during 9/11 and only a few yards away from the first blast in
London today. Spooky eh?

My wife shares the same pattern - she arrived at London Heathrow at
around 9:00am this morning, and me, I am always the other side of the
pond, currently in Florida but when 9/11 happened I had just arrived
in London. She gets the terrorists, I get the hurricanes.

I did experience problems with the London Cellular networks being
jammed this morning, but ultimately discovered (at around lunchtime)
that no matter what the situation, mobile phones simply won't work
when they are switched off....

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 10:42:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:00:04 GMT, Owamanga
<owamanga-not-this-bit@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think anyone has yet blamed Rudolph Giuliani, who was both in
> NY during 9/11 and only a few yards away from the first blast in
> London today. Spooky eh?
>
> My wife shares the same pattern - she arrived at London Heathrow at
> around 9:00am this morning [...]

Uh-oh. Have you ever seen her and Rudy in the same room?

(Also sad and mad about London, despite flippancy.)

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 10:59:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>I just wanted to express my concern for our British friends. I hope none
>were affected by today's terrorist attacks. It would be good if you could
>check in and let us know you're OK.


Thanks Walt.

We're all affected by it, whether we were involved or not. Our
thoughts are with the injured, and with the families of the bereaved.

There could be no doubt an attack on Britain was coming ever since the
UK helped the US invade Iraq. It was a question of where and when.

As long as the UK is involved in Iraq, it won't be the last.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 11:06:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <XoednYX_m4UJ0lDfRVn-iQ@comcast.com>, Walt Hanks
<walthanks@comcast.net> writes
>I just wanted to express my concern for our British friends. I hope none
>were affected by today's terrorist attacks. It would be good if you could
>check in and let us know you're OK.
>

Thanks, Walt. I guess we have a long history of such things, though of
course it would be wrong to say you get used to it. The experience of
history is it just makes us more determined.

David
--
David Littlewood

London
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 11:09:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <grqqc1hk6hvllah79p95mceka4asd77vl0@4ax.com>, Owamanga
<owamanga-not-this-bit@hotmail.com> writes
>
>I did experience problems with the London Cellular networks being
>jammed this morning, but ultimately discovered (at around lunchtime)
>that no matter what the situation, mobile phones simply won't work
>when they are switched off....
>
There is a supposition around here that the mobile networks were
switched off immediately the atrocities became clear. ISTR that some or
all of the Madrid train bombs were triggered by mobile phones. Don't
have any authoritative source for this though.

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 11:20:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David Littlewood wrote:
[]
> There is a supposition around here that the mobile networks were
> switched off immediately the atrocities became clear. ISTR that some
> or all of the Madrid train bombs were triggered by mobile phones.
> Don't have any authoritative source for this though.

The BBC reported that emergency services were given priority.

(Sorry for my OT post, I don't normally do this).

Your thoughts will be appreciated by the friends and families of all those
concerned. Thanks.

David
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 11:51:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XoednYX_m4UJ0lDfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>I just wanted to express my concern for our British friends. I hope none
>were affected by today's terrorist attacks. It would be good if you could
>check in and let us know you're OK.
>
> --
> Walt Hanks
Thanks Walt....one day all these extremeist will realise that if the
Luftwaffe couldn't break our resolve, nor the IRA, then they haven't got a
hope.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 12:00:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 19:09:48 +0100, David Littlewood
<david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <grqqc1hk6hvllah79p95mceka4asd77vl0@4ax.com>, Owamanga
><owamanga-not-this-bit@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>I did experience problems with the London Cellular networks being
>>jammed this morning, but ultimately discovered (at around lunchtime)
>>that no matter what the situation, mobile phones simply won't work
>>when they are switched off....
>>
>There is a supposition around here that the mobile networks were
>switched off immediately the atrocities became clear. ISTR that some or
>all of the Madrid train bombs were triggered by mobile phones. Don't
>have any authoritative source for this though.

I doubt that (not the madrid stuff, but the networks being switched
off). Vodaphone announced that they 'reserved' space for emergency
services use, but were otherwise swamped with calls. The other
networks all reached capacity quickly but didn't take any specific
action with regards to emergency services (other than adding capacity
if they could).

Think about it; for this to work *all* networks would have to be
switched off, and then only switched back on again after each location
had been thoroughly searched, this simply didn't happen.

One way to improve a terrorist attack (eg, increase the terror) would
be to do what you suggest, turn off all forms of mobile communication
and get the panic really going. This would be a crazy idea.

Transatlantic capacity was a problem for a short time too (my
experience only, haven't seen any reports) even for land-line calls -
the exact same thing happened during 9/11.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 12:23:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <1120774178.691025.26560@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Owamanga wrote:
>
>>>>But you turn it all off and get your media to say that "Emergency
>>>>services are being given priority." -- and the sheeple are calmed.
>>> ^^^^^^
>>>
>>>AGGGH!, You've been reading the conspiracy NGs again haven't you?
>>
>> Now I've moved the hats, it might make more sense...
>> ...or maybe not.
>
>But the word "sheeple" is just so poetic!

Perhaps so, but you appear to be using a proportional space
font, and I am reading this with a fixed-space font, and spaces are
narrower than most characters in proportional space fonts, so your group
of "^^^^^" start about four or five spaces beyond the word which you
intended to highlight.

It helps to remember that not everybody is using the same
characterset for newsreading. And between systems, the precise ratio
of widths of characters in the same font can vary as well.

At least you did not use tabs for positioning, which vary even
more widely, since you can define on many terminals or terminal
emulators how many spaces a tab represents. (The default is usually
eight characters, but many people alter the default for various
reasons.)

In any case, the attacks on London filled me with sorrow and
anger as well. I hope that all of the injured survive and recover, and
that no more are discovered to have been killed.

Good Luck,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 12:27:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Walt Hanks wrote:

> I just wanted to express my concern for our British friends. I hope none
> were affected by today's terrorist attacks. It would be good if you could
> check in and let us know you're OK.

Well said.

And our heartfelt thoughts for those who perished, were injured or lost
family or friends.

Alan
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 1:08:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 7 Jul 2005 13:19:50 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>But you turn it all off and get your media to say that "Emergency
>services are being given priority." -- and the sheeple are calmed.

^^^^^^

AGGGH!, You've been reading the conspiracy NGs again haven't you?

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 1:17:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:08:24 GMT, Owamanga
<owamanga-not-this-bit@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 7 Jul 2005 13:19:50 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
><eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>But you turn it all off and get your media to say that "Emergency
>>services are being given priority." -- and the sheeple are calmed.
> ^^^^^^
>
>AGGGH!, You've been reading the conspiracy NGs again haven't you?

Now I've moved the hats, it might make more sense...
....or maybe not.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 1:19:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:

> "Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > I just wanted to express my concern for our British friends. I
> > hope none were affected by today's terrorist attacks. It would be
> > good if you could check in and let us know you're OK.
>
> We're all affected by it, whether we were involved or not. Our
> thoughts are with the injured, and with the families of the bereaved.

Our condolences from here in Texas; an attack against London is an
attack against us all.

> There could be no doubt an attack on Britain was coming ever since the
> UK helped the US invade Iraq. It was a question of where and when.
>
> As long as the UK is involved in Iraq, it won't be the last.

If it was indeed Al Qaeda, they've been attacking Western targets long
before the Iraqi war. It's tempting to blame this on the war, but to
blame it on anyone other than the terrorists who attacked innocent
civilians in order to spread terror is a mistake.

We should not forget who the enemy is.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 1:46:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Albert Nurick" <albert@nurick.com> wrote in message
news:xn0e4gw353scgsy001@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> "Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > I just wanted to express my concern for our British friends. I
>> > hope none were affected by today's terrorist attacks. It would be
>> > good if you could check in and let us know you're OK.
>>
>> We're all affected by it, whether we were involved or not. Our
>> thoughts are with the injured, and with the families of the bereaved.
>
> Our condolences from here in Texas; an attack against London is an
> attack against us all.
>
>> There could be no doubt an attack on Britain was coming ever since the
>> UK helped the US invade Iraq. It was a question of where and when.
>>
>> As long as the UK is involved in Iraq, it won't be the last.
>
> If it was indeed Al Qaeda, they've been attacking Western targets long
> before the Iraqi war. It's tempting to blame this on the war, but to
> blame it on anyone other than the terrorists who attacked innocent
> civilians in order to spread terror is a mistake.
>
> We should not forget who the enemy is.

I reckon the olympics is the target. had paris won the bombs would have
gone off over there.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 2:23:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 7 Jul 2005 14:55:28 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Albert Nurick predictably genuflects:
>
>> Our condolences from here in Texas; an attack against London is an
>> attack against us all.
>
>If you want to walk around wearing a "kill me" T-shirt, well, that's
>your perogative. I only ask you leave the rest of us out of your
>braindead "wars" and related death-wishs.
>
>> If it was indeed Al Qaeda, they've been attacking Western targets long
>> before the Iraqi war. It's tempting to blame this on the war, but to
>> blame it on anyone other than the terrorists who attacked innocent
>> civilians in order to spread terror is a mistake.
>
>Yes, all we have to do is forget there was a history prior to 2005 Jul
>7 and everything makes perfect sense. It's so simple, so easy. For
>the rest of you who look at ~40 dead people in London and can't ignore
>the fact that the British government not only _failed_ to protect these
>people (as they claim they do), but blatantly _encourage_ these attacks
>by participating in a bullshit "war", well you can try the Nurick
>Trick: stick your finger in your ears as you sing "la la la la la!"
>Who knows, maybe you'll get a tax rebate.

I was looking for the first leftwing scumbag to justify the terrorist
actions, and now I've found you. Congratulations.
-Rich
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 2:46:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Canongirly" <me@there.com> wrote:

>"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:XoednYX_m4UJ0lDfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>>I just wanted to express my concern for our British friends. I hope none
>>were affected by today's terrorist attacks. It would be good if you could
>>check in and let us know you're OK.
>>
>> --
>> Walt Hanks
>Thanks Walt....one day all these extremeist will realise that if the
>Luftwaffe couldn't break our resolve, nor the IRA, then they haven't got a
>hope.


Had this been a chemical or biological attack, or a small nuclear
device often referred to as a "dirty bomb", things would have been
very different. Any of those could have been placed and detonated
just as easily as today's explosives.

Such weapons still might not have broken our resolve, but they would
have done considerably more damage to our way of life and our economy.
It certainly would not be "business as usual" tomorrow.

Today's attack will not be the last. Let's hope it wasn't just a
trial run for something far more destructive.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 2:46:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5c8rc1hrfl07mob0lsqp3tcgk0u9rhtfi2@4ax.com...
> "Canongirly" <me@there.com> wrote:
>
>>"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:XoednYX_m4UJ0lDfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>>>I just wanted to express my concern for our British friends. I hope none
>>>were affected by today's terrorist attacks. It would be good if you
>>>could
>>>check in and let us know you're OK.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Walt Hanks
>>Thanks Walt....one day all these extremeist will realise that if the
>>Luftwaffe couldn't break our resolve, nor the IRA, then they haven't got a
>>hope.
>
>
> Had this been a chemical or biological attack, or a small nuclear
> device often referred to as a "dirty bomb", things would have been
> very different. Any of those could have been placed and detonated
> just as easily as today's explosives.

Were that true, then they wouldn't piddle around with conventional
explosives.
Perhaps you mean teh literal *placement* of them... That might be true, but
not the creation/implementation of them.

> Such weapons still might not have broken our resolve, but they would
> have done considerably more damage to our way of life and our economy.
> It certainly would not be "business as usual" tomorrow.
>
> Today's attack will not be the last. Let's hope it wasn't just a
> trial run for something far more destructive.

Hear.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 2:46:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5c8rc1hrfl07mob0lsqp3tcgk0u9rhtfi2@4ax.com...
> "Canongirly" <me@there.com> wrote:
>
>>"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:XoednYX_m4UJ0lDfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>>>I just wanted to express my concern for our British friends. I hope none
>>>were affected by today's terrorist attacks. It would be good if you
>>>could
>>>check in and let us know you're OK.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Walt Hanks
>>Thanks Walt....one day all these extremeist will realise that if the
>>Luftwaffe couldn't break our resolve, nor the IRA, then they haven't got a
>>hope.
>
>
> Had this been a chemical or biological attack, or a small nuclear
> device often referred to as a "dirty bomb", things would have been
> very different. Any of those could have been placed and detonated
> just as easily as today's explosives.
>
> Such weapons still might not have broken our resolve, but they would
> have done considerably more damage to our way of life and our economy.
> It certainly would not be "business as usual" tomorrow.
>
> Today's attack will not be the last. Let's hope it wasn't just a
> trial run for something far more destructive.
>
>
There is only one way to prevent such a thing. We have to pressure the
places where such weapons can be made and given to terrorists to stop. And,
if we have to wage war on them to stop them, well, so be it.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 2:55:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:17:49 GMT, Owamanga
<owamanga-not-this-bit@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:08:24 GMT, Owamanga
><owamanga-not-this-bit@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 7 Jul 2005 13:19:50 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
>><eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>But you turn it all off and get your media to say that "Emergency
>>>services are being given priority." -- and the sheeple are calmed.
>> ^^^^^^
>>
>>AGGGH!, You've been reading the conspiracy NGs again haven't you?
>
>Now I've moved the hats, it might make more sense...
>...or maybe not.

Not, by the look of it ;-)

--
Regards

John Bean
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 3:08:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <5c8rc1hrfl07mob0lsqp3tcgk0u9rhtfi2@4ax.com>,
Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:

> Had this been a chemical or biological attack, or a small nuclear
> device often referred to as a "dirty bomb", things would have been
> very different. Any of those could have been placed and detonated
> just as easily as today's explosives.
>
> Such weapons still might not have broken our resolve, but they would
> have done considerably more damage to our way of life and our economy.
> It certainly would not be "business as usual" tomorrow.
>
> Today's attack will not be the last. Let's hope it wasn't just a
> trial run for something far more destructive.

Not to needlessly worry, but what you say is very true and something I
have considered about my own country. Of course that
trial run could be for anywhere.
--
Yes I made, another pointless post from another
nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better.
--
LOL.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 3:18:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5c8rc1hrfl07mob0lsqp3tcgk0u9rhtfi2@4ax.com...
> "Canongirly" <me@there.com> wrote:
>
>>"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:XoednYX_m4UJ0lDfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>>>I just wanted to express my concern for our British friends. I hope none
>>>were affected by today's terrorist attacks. It would be good if you
>>>could
>>>check in and let us know you're OK.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Walt Hanks
>>Thanks Walt....one day all these extremeist will realise that if the
>>Luftwaffe couldn't break our resolve, nor the IRA, then they haven't got a
>>hope.
>
>
> Had this been a chemical or biological attack, or a small nuclear
> device often referred to as a "dirty bomb", things would have been
> very different. Any of those could have been placed and detonated
> just as easily as today's explosives.
>
> Such weapons still might not have broken our resolve, but they would
> have done considerably more damage to our way of life and our economy.
> It certainly would not be "business as usual" tomorrow.
>
> Today's attack will not be the last. Let's hope it wasn't just a
> trial run for something far more destructive.
>
well look on the bright side
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 3:41:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Canongirly" <me@there.com> wrote:

>well look on the bright side


Perhaps today *was* the bright side.

I almost could not believe that an Al Qaeda attack on London would be
so minimal compared to 9/11 and Madrid. In comparison with these
terrible events, London escaped very lightly indeed today.

Many more people are killed and injured by terrorist attacks in
Baghdad in a single week. That carnage barely gets a mention in our
media, yet it is a daily fact of life in Iraq.

If you live and/or work in London, you should be extremely vigilant.
As with the IRA bombing campaign, the observations of individuals will
be just as important as the work of the security services in foiling
further attacks.

I speak as someone whose life and work has been significantly
disrupted by IRA terrorism, ironically largely funded by Irish
Americans, some of whom may have thought they were contributing to
organisations that operated within the law, but were actually funding
terror attacks against the British people.

I narrowly missed the bomb attack at Victoria station, having just
missed a Tube train to Victoria which would have got me there at the
time the bomb detonated. As it was, I arrived four minutes later to
witness the aftermath.

An IRA bomb exploded on a main line railway track in Sussex. The
location of the bomb was 140 metres from my home. Several windows in
surrounding houses were blown out by the explosion. The railway track
was the one my train to work had passed over 40 minutes previously.

So I am under no illusions about the threat London faces. We need to
rediscover the vigilance that Londoners developed to foil even greater
carnage than the IRA planned and achieved. The IRA gave warnings,
most of the time. These guys do not, ever.

So yes, let us keep a typically British stiff upper lip and show that
we are strong and won't be cowed. But let us also be vigilant,
because as Winston Churchill said in 1942, this is not the end, or the
beginning of the end. It is the end of the beginning.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 3:41:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:hrarc1pnv6qd5hnuob31t8fdslo75r13b7@4ax.com...
> "Canongirly" <me@there.com> wrote:
>
>>well look on the bright side
>
>
> Perhaps today *was* the bright side.
>
> I almost could not believe that an Al Qaeda attack on London would be
> so minimal compared to 9/11 and Madrid. In comparison with these
> terrible events, London escaped very lightly indeed today.
>
> Many more people are killed and injured by terrorist attacks in
> Baghdad in a single week. That carnage barely gets a mention in our
> media, yet it is a daily fact of life in Iraq.

Yes, and this tells me something about their capabilities to date. They
don't yet have the capability to assemble a nuclear weapon in a large
metropolitan area and detonate it. If they did, they would have done it. And
we have to keep them from getting this capability at all costs. We are not
going to do this by fighting and bickering amongst ourselves. IMO, the only
way is to take over countries who are friendly to the Al Queida and their
aims, and "Democratize" them. This means forcing them to start teaching
their children the three "R"'s instead of how to get to heaven by killing
infidels.......
July 8, 2005 3:41:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

William Graham wrote:
> "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:hrarc1pnv6qd5hnuob31t8fdslo75r13b7@4ax.com...
>
>>"Canongirly" <me@there.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>well look on the bright side
>>
>>
>>Perhaps today *was* the bright side.
>>
>>I almost could not believe that an Al Qaeda attack on London would be
>>so minimal compared to 9/11 and Madrid. In comparison with these
>>terrible events, London escaped very lightly indeed today.
>>
>>Many more people are killed and injured by terrorist attacks in
>>Baghdad in a single week. That carnage barely gets a mention in our
>>media, yet it is a daily fact of life in Iraq.
>
>
> Yes, and this tells me something about their capabilities to date. They
> don't yet have the capability to assemble a nuclear weapon in a large
> metropolitan area and detonate it. If they did, they would have done it. And
> we have to keep them from getting this capability at all costs. We are not
> going to do this by fighting and bickering amongst ourselves. IMO, the only
> way is to take over countries who are friendly to the Al Queida and their
> aims, and "Democratize" them. This means forcing them to start teaching
> their children the three "R"'s instead of how to get to heaven by killing
> infidels.......
>
>


You left out the part about the 40 virgins, which for some incredibly
silly reason, is something they actually look forward to. I always
believed they were stupid, but give me (and them) a break.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 3:41:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:11crtsbioo65m2a@corp.supernews.com...
> William Graham wrote:
>> "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:hrarc1pnv6qd5hnuob31t8fdslo75r13b7@4ax.com...
>>
>>>"Canongirly" <me@there.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>well look on the bright side
>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps today *was* the bright side.
>>>
>>>I almost could not believe that an Al Qaeda attack on London would be
>>>so minimal compared to 9/11 and Madrid. In comparison with these
>>>terrible events, London escaped very lightly indeed today.
>>>
>>>Many more people are killed and injured by terrorist attacks in
>>>Baghdad in a single week. That carnage barely gets a mention in our
>>>media, yet it is a daily fact of life in Iraq.
>>
>>
>> Yes, and this tells me something about their capabilities to date. They
>> don't yet have the capability to assemble a nuclear weapon in a large
>> metropolitan area and detonate it. If they did, they would have done it.
>> And we have to keep them from getting this capability at all costs. We
>> are not going to do this by fighting and bickering amongst ourselves.
>> IMO, the only way is to take over countries who are friendly to the Al
>> Queida and their aims, and "Democratize" them. This means forcing them to
>> start teaching their children the three "R"'s instead of how to get to
>> heaven by killing infidels.......
>
>
> You left out the part about the 40 virgins, which for some incredibly
> silly reason, is something they actually look forward to. I always
> believed they were stupid, but give me (and them) a break.

Yes....That IS so stupid that I can't bring myself to repeat it. Besides,
why would that appeal to the female suicide bombers? Do they get 40 Brad
Pitts?
July 8, 2005 3:41:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

William Graham wrote:
> "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> news:11crtsbioo65m2a@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>William Graham wrote:
>>
>>>"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>>news:hrarc1pnv6qd5hnuob31t8fdslo75r13b7@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Canongirly" <me@there.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>well look on the bright side
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps today *was* the bright side.
>>>>
>>>>I almost could not believe that an Al Qaeda attack on London would be
>>>>so minimal compared to 9/11 and Madrid. In comparison with these
>>>>terrible events, London escaped very lightly indeed today.
>>>>
>>>>Many more people are killed and injured by terrorist attacks in
>>>>Baghdad in a single week. That carnage barely gets a mention in our
>>>>media, yet it is a daily fact of life in Iraq.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, and this tells me something about their capabilities to date. They
>>>don't yet have the capability to assemble a nuclear weapon in a large
>>>metropolitan area and detonate it. If they did, they would have done it.
>>>And we have to keep them from getting this capability at all costs. We
>>>are not going to do this by fighting and bickering amongst ourselves.
>>>IMO, the only way is to take over countries who are friendly to the Al
>>>Queida and their aims, and "Democratize" them. This means forcing them to
>>>start teaching their children the three "R"'s instead of how to get to
>>>heaven by killing infidels.......
>>
>>
>>You left out the part about the 40 virgins, which for some incredibly
>>silly reason, is something they actually look forward to. I always
>>believed they were stupid, but give me (and them) a break.
>
>
> Yes....That IS so stupid that I can't bring myself to repeat it. Besides,
> why would that appeal to the female suicide bombers? Do they get 40 Brad
> Pitts?
>
>


I dunno, maybe that's WHY they're suicide bombers.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 3:41:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

I'm very sorry to learn about the events in London. There isn't any
expression sufficient to convey the sympathy and regret owed the
victims, their families, and friends.

Basic human values have apparently taken a new turn, or at least a
more injurious course. Unlike a lot of problems this one has no easy
solution, if any at all. You can apply a lot of science and logical
thought, and still come to a basic understanding: science and logic
hardly count.

Learning can be counteracted by new teaching; faith resists all but
stronger faith.

The challenge, and the great impediment to solving the "terrorism"
problem, is its fragmented nature. There are enough individuals
motivated to carry on, enough small groups, enough financing and plain
old fanaticism that no organization or leader can be a keystone for
"victory". No campaign of erasure or reeducation can be effective.

Long row to hoe.

Sorry for the losses, and those to come.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 4:04:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 17:11:42 -0700, "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:hrarc1pnv6qd5hnuob31t8fdslo75r13b7@4ax.com...
>> "Canongirly" <me@there.com> wrote:
>>
>>>well look on the bright side
>>
>>
>> Perhaps today *was* the bright side.
>>
>> I almost could not believe that an Al Qaeda attack on London would be
>> so minimal compared to 9/11 and Madrid. In comparison with these
>> terrible events, London escaped very lightly indeed today.
>>
>> Many more people are killed and injured by terrorist attacks in
>> Baghdad in a single week. That carnage barely gets a mention in our
>> media, yet it is a daily fact of life in Iraq.
>
>Yes, and this tells me something about their capabilities to date. They
>don't yet have the capability to assemble a nuclear weapon in a large
>metropolitan area and detonate it. If they did, they would have done it. And
>we have to keep them from getting this capability at all costs. We are not
>going to do this by fighting and bickering amongst ourselves. IMO, the only
>way is to take over countries who are friendly to the Al Queida and their
>aims, and "Democratize" them. This means forcing them to start teaching
>their children the three "R"'s instead of how to get to heaven by killing
>infidels.......

It also means that my government, the US of A, has to get its head out
of its arse about how these Al Queda-friendly countries get most of
their revenues and their power base. Petrodollars.

The Bush administration has yet to do anything serious/meaningful
about energy usage and conservation. Manage down oil imports and you
weaken those countries that would do us in. And weaken their absolute
power over their people. And their ability to fund extremism in
multiple forms throughout the world.

Of course, energy conservation woodlot be "bad" for business, and we
all know, "What's good for General Motors is good for the country." I
didn't say that. Charles Wilson, former chairman of General Motors,
did, about 1955 or so.

To anyone who believes that the US is waging an _effective_ war
against Al Queda, I can only say that history will judge this
particular George Bush very badly, for incompetence that has cost
hundreds of American lives. He was the wrong guy at the wrong time
when America was attacked by Al Queda.

I only wish that some European leader, Tony Blair, or someone else,
has the leadership to challenge Bush on his (mis) conduct of the fight
against Al Queda. There is a war that needs to be fought, and it
won't be a quick one, but Iraq wasn't the place for this war. Only
now it has become the focus of the fight when it didn't need to be.

It's sad that the Spanish government was poorly led, and the French
are up to their usual games of trying to split the middle and weaken
the "Anglo-Saxons." De Gaulle may be long gone, but Gaullism
unfortunately still lives.

And Germany? or a United Europe? Can Europe take the leadership of
this fight? Or will "Europe" continue to insist on negotiations with
the Iranians, who are playing us all for fools?

By the way, it has long been a theme in the Arab world of getting an
"Islamic bomb." Pakistan now has the bomb, and I could hardly think
of a country less able to keep its bomb out of terrorist hands. Bush
really needs to rethink his "alliances."

There is plenty of incompetence in the world today in governments. Al
Queda is skillfully exploiting that.

It's really time for another Churchill. Truly. The Battle of Britain
will probably pale when compared to the struggles ahead.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 4:51:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
news:D k8sc15epm64ia388brsj8d5fvuj3ngtfk@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 17:11:42 -0700, "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>news:hrarc1pnv6qd5hnuob31t8fdslo75r13b7@4ax.com...
>>> "Canongirly" <me@there.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>well look on the bright side
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps today *was* the bright side.
>>>
>>> I almost could not believe that an Al Qaeda attack on London would be
>>> so minimal compared to 9/11 and Madrid. In comparison with these
>>> terrible events, London escaped very lightly indeed today.
>>>
>>> Many more people are killed and injured by terrorist attacks in
>>> Baghdad in a single week. That carnage barely gets a mention in our
>>> media, yet it is a daily fact of life in Iraq.
>>
>>Yes, and this tells me something about their capabilities to date. They
>>don't yet have the capability to assemble a nuclear weapon in a large
>>metropolitan area and detonate it. If they did, they would have done it.
>>And
>>we have to keep them from getting this capability at all costs. We are not
>>going to do this by fighting and bickering amongst ourselves. IMO, the
>>only
>>way is to take over countries who are friendly to the Al Queida and their
>>aims, and "Democratize" them. This means forcing them to start teaching
>>their children the three "R"'s instead of how to get to heaven by killing
>>infidels.......
>
> It also means that my government, the US of A, has to get its head out
> of its arse about how these Al Queda-friendly countries get most of
> their revenues and their power base. Petrodollars.
>
> The Bush administration has yet to do anything serious/meaningful
> about energy usage and conservation. Manage down oil imports and you
> weaken those countries that would do us in. And weaken their absolute
> power over their people. And their ability to fund extremism in
> multiple forms throughout the world.
>
> Of course, energy conservation woodlot be "bad" for business, and we
> all know, "What's good for General Motors is good for the country." I
> didn't say that. Charles Wilson, former chairman of General Motors,
> did, about 1955 or so.

In general, I agree with that. We should spend more time and money on
alternate energy development. By the way, the correct quote was, "What's
good for the country is good for General Motors."
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 5:19:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XoednYX_m4UJ0lDfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>I just wanted to express my concern for our British friends. I hope none
>were affected by today's terrorist attacks. It would be good if you could
>check in and let us know you're OK.
>
> --
> Walt Hanks


Cheers Walt. I was in Bow photographing the Olympic site. My Fiancé was in
Central London and really struggled to get back home to Essex. These
bombings were a sad reminder of the discontent in our World. They are not
though, or not though, an excuse to avoid the vibrant and spirited effort to
make 2012 a year to remember for many years to come
--
Simon
http://www.pbase.com/stanmore
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 5:24:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
news:D k8sc15epm64ia388brsj8d5fvuj3ngtfk@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 17:11:42 -0700, "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>news:hrarc1pnv6qd5hnuob31t8fdslo75r13b7@4ax.com...
>>> "Canongirly" <me@there.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>well look on the bright side
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps today *was* the bright side.
>>>
>>> I almost could not believe that an Al Qaeda attack on London would be
>>> so minimal compared to 9/11 and Madrid. In comparison with these
>>> terrible events, London escaped very lightly indeed today.
>>>
>>> Many more people are killed and injured by terrorist attacks in
>>> Baghdad in a single week. That carnage barely gets a mention in our
>>> media, yet it is a daily fact of life in Iraq.
>>
>>Yes, and this tells me something about their capabilities to date. They
>>don't yet have the capability to assemble a nuclear weapon in a large
>>metropolitan area and detonate it. If they did, they would have done it.
>>And
>>we have to keep them from getting this capability at all costs. We are not
>>going to do this by fighting and bickering amongst ourselves. IMO, the
>>only
>>way is to take over countries who are friendly to the Al Queida and their
>>aims, and "Democratize" them. This means forcing them to start teaching
>>their children the three "R"'s instead of how to get to heaven by killing
>>infidels.......
>
> It also means that my government, the US of A, has to get its head out
> of its arse about how these Al Queda-friendly countries get most of
> their revenues and their power base. Petrodollars.
>
> The Bush administration has yet to do anything serious/meaningful
> about energy usage and conservation. Manage down oil imports and you
> weaken those countries that would do us in. And weaken their absolute
> power over their people. And their ability to fund extremism in
> multiple forms throughout the world.
>
> Of course, energy conservation woodlot be "bad" for business, and we
> all know, "What's good for General Motors is good for the country."

I think you got that quote backwards...
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 5:46:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:T9ydnQ6a-tUtWVDfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>
> "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:hrarc1pnv6qd5hnuob31t8fdslo75r13b7@4ax.com...
> > "Canongirly" <me@there.com> wrote:
> >
> >>well look on the bright side
> >
> >
> > Perhaps today *was* the bright side.
> >
> > I almost could not believe that an Al Qaeda
> > attack on London would be so minimal
> > compared to 9/11 and Madrid. In comparison
> > with these terrible events, London escaped very
> > lightly indeed today.
> >
> > Many more people are killed and injured by
> > terrorist attacks in Baghdad in a single week.
> > That carnage barely gets a mention in our
> > media, yet it is a daily fact of life in Iraq.
>
> Yes, and this tells me something about their
> capabilities to date. They don't yet have the
> capability to assemble a nuclear weapon in a large
> metropolitan area and detonate it. If they did, they
> would have done it. And we have to keep them
> from getting this capability at all costs. We are not
> going to do this by fighting and bickering amongst
> ourselves. IMO, the only way is to take over
> countries who are friendly to the Al Queida and
> their aims, and "Democratize" them. This means
> forcing them to start teaching their children the
> three "R"'s instead of how to get to heaven by
> killing infidels.......
>

It is the threat people feel when Americans say this that is the main
driving force for the terrorists' recruitment. Anyway, the most Al Qaeda
friendly country is Saudi Arabia, and I don't see Bushy boy upsetting them.

Fighting terrorists only by such means is like the old nuclear war computer
game: you felt really good about how you were intercepting virtually all the
incoming missiles, till you noticed that the single one that had slipped
through had killed a million of your people. Taking away the terrorists
raison d'etre has to be the other half of the equation, and so far Bush is
doing quite the reverse to that.



Peter
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 5:46:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:1120783234.33367.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
>
> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:T9ydnQ6a-tUtWVDfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:hrarc1pnv6qd5hnuob31t8fdslo75r13b7@4ax.com...
>> > "Canongirly" <me@there.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>well look on the bright side
>> >
>> >
>> > Perhaps today *was* the bright side.
>> >
>> > I almost could not believe that an Al Qaeda
>> > attack on London would be so minimal
>> > compared to 9/11 and Madrid. In comparison
>> > with these terrible events, London escaped very
>> > lightly indeed today.
>> >
>> > Many more people are killed and injured by
>> > terrorist attacks in Baghdad in a single week.
>> > That carnage barely gets a mention in our
>> > media, yet it is a daily fact of life in Iraq.
>>
>> Yes, and this tells me something about their
>> capabilities to date. They don't yet have the
>> capability to assemble a nuclear weapon in a large
>> metropolitan area and detonate it. If they did, they
>> would have done it. And we have to keep them
>> from getting this capability at all costs. We are not
>> going to do this by fighting and bickering amongst
>> ourselves. IMO, the only way is to take over
>> countries who are friendly to the Al Queida and
>> their aims, and "Democratize" them. This means
>> forcing them to start teaching their children the
>> three "R"'s instead of how to get to heaven by
>> killing infidels.......
>>
>
> It is the threat people feel when Americans say this that is the main
> driving force for the terrorists' recruitment. Anyway, the most Al Qaeda
> friendly country is Saudi Arabia, and I don't see Bushy boy upsetting
> them.
>
> Fighting terrorists only by such means is like the old nuclear war
> computer
> game: you felt really good about how you were intercepting virtually all
> the
> incoming missiles, till you noticed that the single one that had slipped
> through had killed a million of your people. Taking away the terrorists
> raison d'etre has to be the other half of the equation, and so far Bush is
> doing quite the reverse to that.

Well, I'd sure like to know if your evaluation is correct, but in the
meantime, I'm not sure I'd like to take my chances by turning my back on the
middle East, and hoping that it will all go away like a bad dream. I think
we will be a lot safer by bombing the living hell out of any of them that
gives any aid and comfort to the terrorists or their organizations. I'm
sorry that my evaluation of the situation doesn't match yours, but that's
the way it is. The past history of these people doesn't impress me with
their honesty and believability. Now, if you only could come up with a good
solution, instead of harping on all the mistakes we have made in the past
that I can't do anything about, even if I wanted to.......
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 1:20:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120765606.426166.57970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> David J Taylor wrote:
> > The BBC reported that emergency services were given priority.
>
> The BBC, like all state-run media, does what it is told. Would there
> be an operational difference even if the BBC's statement reflected the
> truth?
>
> > Your thoughts will be appreciated by the friends and families of all
those
> > concerned. Thanks.
>
> I doubt any of them know "we" exist, and fewer than that are going to
> be rummaging around on the net looking for messages of condolence.


In your haste to demonstrate your humanity, you forgot to mention that since
any reduction in population lowers demand on the world's scant resources,
it's actually a *good* thing so many Brits died, as there is now more food,
water, air, and space for rest of us. Not to mention the savings in
irreplaceable hydrocarbons resulting from the shutdown of the London
underground in the aftermath of the attack. I guess we should actually be
celebrating, but I still want to offer my sympathies instead.

Thanks to people's expressions of condolence, somewhere in a pub or
restaurant, someone might say something like "It's amazing how many people
on the 'net care what happened to us" which will be overheard by someone
affected by the bombings and maybe, just maybe, the hearer will feel a bit
better. So even if the person doesn't know who "we" are or even what "we"
really said, the feeling behind the proffered sympathy may eventually get
through, which is the whole point, after all. When contributing flowers to
a funeral display, I have never expected to see my meager offering announced
with fanfare and placed under a spotlight; no, I've simply wanted to
contribute to the mass of color and life surrounding the coffin of the
deceased, hoping that the distraction of the entire display will give some
tiny measure of relief to the relatives and loved ones of the departed.
Expressing sympathy to the victims of yesterday's attack is also similar to
the phenomenon of voting: While cynics are absolutely right when they say
that a given person's vote is utterly insignificant in a national election,
the collective effect of milliions of people casting their individually
insignificant votes is nevertheless palpable and significant.

So I guess what I'm trying to say in my own fumbling way is, "Bite me, you
callous bastard." Yeah, that's about right.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 6:30:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>Frankly, it's not "payback" that causes problem with the French.
>It's their socialist, anti-American leanings that cause irritation over
>here.

The average French citizen is not anti-American. Certainly they enjoy a
good laugh at the antics of the US President; other that that, the French
are merely pro-France.

-Tim
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 6:30:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

I did not start this thread to give people a forum for Bush bashing or any
other political statement. This was supposed to be a statement of support
for the British members of our group who's homeland was visited by
terrorism. If you can't do that, please just return to discussions about
photography. This is neither the time nor the place for the rest.

Walt
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 6:30:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Tim Giles" <tgiles@spam.com> wrote in message
news:D am2mh$sut$1@abpc10512.cern.ch...
> Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>Frankly, it's not "payback" that causes problem with the French.
>>It's their socialist, anti-American leanings that cause irritation over
>>here.
>
> The average French citizen is not anti-American. Certainly they enjoy a
> good laugh at the antics of the US President; other that that, the French
> are merely pro-France.

While that may be true, America doesn't deal with each French citizen.
It deals with the actions/decisions/positions of the French government.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 6:58:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120856880.871716.27810@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It is unquestionable that significant numbers of foreign elements are
> at work in Iraq. Had I been in charge, Iraq would have been surrounded
> long before the invasion, whether we had permission from Syria, SA, or
> Turkey, or not. We should NOT have gone to the UN pleading for support.
> We should have gone in six months earlier, before they had time to
> prepare.

If we are talking shoulda-coulda-woulda, then Bush Sr. should have taken
over the country and gotten rid of Saddam back in 1991. Even he regrets that
decision today........



>
> Also bear in mind that no Westerner would perform a suicide bombing
> mission. This sort of thing is not imaginable for us. The psychology of
> Islam is sick and diseased, and I mean ALL of Islam. there are no
> 'peace-loving' Muslims. There are only devout Muslims or non-Muslims.
> Devout Muslims will do ANYTHING they are told comes from their holy
> writ, and I mean ANYTHING. This is obvious. Unlike the West, where
> millions are 'nominal' Christians, who take their Christianity lightly,
> there are no 'half-way' Muslims.
>
To an old atheist like me, there are no "normal" religious people. There are
only religious people, and non-religious people, and you can't trust
religious people. They are liable to do ANYTHING to satisfy their perception
of what their God wants them to do, regardless of how illogical or bazaar
it is......
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 9:38:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tK-dnYRfCcJlQlDfRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120783234.33367.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
> >
> > "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:T9ydnQ6a-tUtWVDfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> >>
> >> "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >> news:hrarc1pnv6qd5hnuob31t8fdslo75r13b7@4ax.com...
> >> > "Canongirly" <me@there.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>well look on the bright side
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps today *was* the bright side.
> >> >
> >> > I almost could not believe that an Al Qaeda
> >> > attack on London would be so minimal
> >> > compared to 9/11 and Madrid. In comparison
> >> > with these terrible events, London escaped very
> >> > lightly indeed today.
> >> >
> >> > Many more people are killed and injured by
> >> > terrorist attacks in Baghdad in a single week.
> >> > That carnage barely gets a mention in our
> >> > media, yet it is a daily fact of life in Iraq.
> >>
> >> Yes, and this tells me something about their
> >> capabilities to date. They don't yet have the
> >> capability to assemble a nuclear weapon in a large
> >> metropolitan area and detonate it. If they did, they
> >> would have done it. And we have to keep them
> >> from getting this capability at all costs. We are not
> >> going to do this by fighting and bickering amongst
> >> ourselves. IMO, the only way is to take over
> >> countries who are friendly to the Al Queida and
> >> their aims, and "Democratize" them. This means
> >> forcing them to start teaching their children the
> >> three "R"'s instead of how to get to heaven by
> >> killing infidels.......
> >>
> >
> > It is the threat people feel when Americans say this that is
> > the main driving force for the terrorists' recruitment.
> > Anyway, the most Al Qaeda friendly country is Saudi
> > Arabia, and I don't see Bushy boy upsetting them.
> >
> > Fighting terrorists only by such means is like the old
> > nuclear war computer game: you felt really good about
> > how you were intercepting virtually all the incoming
> > missiles, till you noticed that the single one that had
> > slipped through had killed a million of your people.
> > Taking away the terrorists raison d'etre has to be the
> > other half of the equation, and so far Bush is doing quite
> > the reverse to that.
>
> Well, I'd sure like to know if your evaluation is correct, but
> in the meantime, I'm not sure I'd like to take my chances by
> turning my back on the middle East, and hoping that it will
> all go away like a bad dream. I think we will be a lot safer
> by bombing the living hell out of any of them that gives any
> aid and comfort to the terrorists or their organizations. I'm
> sorry that my evaluation of the situation doesn't match
> yours, but that's the way it is. The past history of these
> people doesn't impress me with their honesty and
> believability. Now, if you only could come up with a good
> solution, instead of harping on all the mistakes we have
> made in the past that I can't do anything about, even if I
> wanted to.......
>
>

I didn't say we should stop addressing the current terrorists - only that if
that is _all_ we do, we will be doing it forever, and still only catching
some of them. We have to stop the conditions that constantly feed new
volunteers to the 'cause' as well, or we will never get anywhere.

And it isn't me harping on the mistakes of tha past - I'm concerned about
the things that are being done right now. There must be two halves to
approaching the problem, and so far there is one (being handled not that
well) and the other being ignored altogether.



Peter
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 9:38:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:1120840710.3386.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
>
> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:tK-dnYRfCcJlQlDfRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1120783234.33367.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
>> >
>> > "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > news:T9ydnQ6a-tUtWVDfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:hrarc1pnv6qd5hnuob31t8fdslo75r13b7@4ax.com...
>> >> > "Canongirly" <me@there.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>well look on the bright side
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Perhaps today *was* the bright side.
>> >> >
>> >> > I almost could not believe that an Al Qaeda
>> >> > attack on London would be so minimal
>> >> > compared to 9/11 and Madrid. In comparison
>> >> > with these terrible events, London escaped very
>> >> > lightly indeed today.
>> >> >
>> >> > Many more people are killed and injured by
>> >> > terrorist attacks in Baghdad in a single week.
>> >> > That carnage barely gets a mention in our
>> >> > media, yet it is a daily fact of life in Iraq.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, and this tells me something about their
>> >> capabilities to date. They don't yet have the
>> >> capability to assemble a nuclear weapon in a large
>> >> metropolitan area and detonate it. If they did, they
>> >> would have done it. And we have to keep them
>> >> from getting this capability at all costs. We are not
>> >> going to do this by fighting and bickering amongst
>> >> ourselves. IMO, the only way is to take over
>> >> countries who are friendly to the Al Queida and
>> >> their aims, and "Democratize" them. This means
>> >> forcing them to start teaching their children the
>> >> three "R"'s instead of how to get to heaven by
>> >> killing infidels.......
>> >>
>> >
>> > It is the threat people feel when Americans say this that is
>> > the main driving force for the terrorists' recruitment.
>> > Anyway, the most Al Qaeda friendly country is Saudi
>> > Arabia, and I don't see Bushy boy upsetting them.
>> >
>> > Fighting terrorists only by such means is like the old
>> > nuclear war computer game: you felt really good about
>> > how you were intercepting virtually all the incoming
>> > missiles, till you noticed that the single one that had
>> > slipped through had killed a million of your people.
>> > Taking away the terrorists raison d'etre has to be the
>> > other half of the equation, and so far Bush is doing quite
>> > the reverse to that.
>>
>> Well, I'd sure like to know if your evaluation is correct, but
>> in the meantime, I'm not sure I'd like to take my chances by
>> turning my back on the middle East, and hoping that it will
>> all go away like a bad dream. I think we will be a lot safer
>> by bombing the living hell out of any of them that gives any
>> aid and comfort to the terrorists or their organizations. I'm
>> sorry that my evaluation of the situation doesn't match
>> yours, but that's the way it is. The past history of these
>> people doesn't impress me with their honesty and
>> believability. Now, if you only could come up with a good
>> solution, instead of harping on all the mistakes we have
>> made in the past that I can't do anything about, even if I
>> wanted to.......
>>
>>
>
> I didn't say we should stop addressing the current terrorists - only that
> if
> that is _all_ we do, we will be doing it forever, and still only
> catching
> some of them. We have to stop the conditions that constantly feed new
> volunteers to the 'cause' as well, or we will never get anywhere.
>
> And it isn't me harping on the mistakes of tha past - I'm concerned about
> the things that are being done right now. There must be two halves to
> approaching the problem, and so far there is one (being handled not that
> well) and the other being ignored altogether.
>
Yes. And we are castigated for only bothering with the countries that have
oil. Of course, it's only the countries that have oil, and therefore are
rich, who can afford to make atom bombs, so that is one reason why they have
caught our interest. Bush doesn't give a damn about some poverty stricken
African country because they are generally incapable of giving us a hard
time by financing terrorists. (Although, he has apparently made some kind of
a deal with Tony Blair to help Africa in return for political support of the
war in Iraq.) I think he had better start worrying about Africa, because
it's only a matter of time before they discover oil there too.....:^)
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 9:56:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <XoednYX_m4UJ0lDfRVn-iQ@comcast.com>, Walt Hanks
<walthanks@comcast.net> writes
>I just wanted to express my concern for our British friends. I hope none
>were affected by today's terrorist attacks. It would be good if you could
>check in and let us know you're OK.

By chance, I'd taken the week off and didn't go into Central London. The
office where I work is close to some of the affected stations and I was
able to sign onto my work email to check on the safety of my colleagues,
and all are believed to be safe, thank goodness.

Helen

Helen Edith Stephenson <helen at baronmoss dot demon dot co dot uk>
--
(I'm sure you can figure out what I mean!)
http://www.baronmoss.demon.co.uk
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 10:21:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Bandicoot <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:

>> IMO, the only way is to take over
>> countries who are friendly to the Al Queida and
>> their aims, and "Democratize" them. This means
>> forcing them to start teaching their children the
>> three "R"'s instead of how to get to heaven by
>> killing infidels.......
>
> It is the threat people feel when Americans say this that is the main
> driving force for the terrorists' recruitment.

But their total and utter lack of understanding of our culture somehow makes
them fail to realize that their actions are the *reason* we say that, and that
every time they do something like this, it will result in us wanting *more*
to exterminate them like insects. They seem to think it will "break our
resolve" or somesuch nonsense. All they're going to accomplish is making
us want to kill them even more. It won't break our resolve -- it will change
our resolve to "let's just kill all of them and ask questions later".

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 10:22:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Bandicoot <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:

> And if it wasn't for the French the Americans wouldn't have won independence
> when they did (just got it a few years later probably, since for economic
> reasons they'd have had to go). I don't see the Americans showing much
> gratitude to the French though...

We "liberated" their country and gave it back to them not once, but twice.
So I think they owe *us* one at this point.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 11:53:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <11cth2teserna4c@corp.supernews.com>, Jeremy Nixon
<jeremy@exit109.com> writes
>Bandicoot <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:
>
>> And if it wasn't for the French the Americans wouldn't have won independence
>> when they did (just got it a few years later probably, since for economic
>> reasons they'd have had to go). I don't see the Americans showing much
>> gratitude to the French though...
>
>We "liberated" their country and gave it back to them not once, but twice.
>So I think they owe *us* one at this point.
>
Er, I think I must have miscounted. Twice? Or are you taking a very
broad view of "we"?

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 1:28:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 07-Jul-05 21:55:28, eawckyegcy@yahoo.com said
>Albert Nurick predictably genuflects:

>> Our condolences from here in Texas; an attack against London is an
>> attack against us all.

>If you want to walk around wearing a "kill me" T-shirt, well, that's
>your perogative. I only ask you leave the rest of us out of your
>braindead "wars" and related death-wishs.

Albert, thanks for your words which I agree with - other guy, thanks for
underlining the sense in Albert's post, albeit with contrast.


All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
!