The Def Guide to Zzap!64

Pretty fucked up. I'm looking at the news now and there have been bombs on many central London uses and on tubes.

Is it the work of cyco anti capitalists because of the G8 or an terriost attack?

Go to bbc news for more info.

Iain wrote:Is it the work of cyco anti capitalists because of the G8 or an terriost attack?

'Or'?

From the latest news, it seems that it is al-quaeda (sic)

Well when I say terrorist, I mean al quida (?), although obviously whoever did it is a terrorist.

They still seems to be going on about power surges though, can't quite see how that would make a bus blow up!!...

The power surges are in relation to the Tube incidents and it could have been coincidence that they occurred around the same time as the bus bombings. As for al-Qaeda, who knows? It's hardly a shock that some have leapt to that conclusion and I bet Blair and Clarke have mixed feelings about today's events, because they're sure to make it a piece of piss to force through the ID cards bill.

But what's it gonna matter if the people who did this are British citizens and have been living here all their lives? Answer: nothing.

You only have to think of Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber to know that threats can be from your own citizens...

Just been an update that there's a statement on the Al Qaueda website, claiming responsibility.

Sure will be easier to push through all that privacy busting laws now alright

Annoys me that they will try and push the iD cards through on the terrorism card.

Madrid had ID cards - they got attacked.

USA has a tough Visa system, the 9/11 hijackers were all on Student Visa's

We need to spend more money on border controls and vetting the people we are letting into the country

CraigGrannell wrote:I bet Blair and Clarke have mixed feelings about today's events

You can't be serious. I don't believe for one second they have mixed feelings about today. I'm sure that they are totally and utterly horrified about what has happened

My point was that I'm sure there was a glimmer in there that was thinking "politics". Subsequent speeches in the Commons seems to suggest that was the case. Perhaps 99.9 per cent of them thought "f——", but it's that 0.01 per cent that should also be thinking "f——" but wasn't is the thing I'm talking about—not some politician jumping for joy and having to compose him/herself.

It's all about politics, do you think that when the planes crashed into the twin towers, there wasn't a thought in Bush's or his neo-cons head about how now they could go after Saddam and Iraq?

I wouldn't go as far as the theory that it was all organised by the CIA etc. But people in power, aren't there because they were super nice, honest, caring people

CraigGrannell wrote:My point was that I'm sure there was a glimmer in there that was thinking "politics". Subsequent speeches in the Commons seems to suggest that was the case. Perhaps 99.9 per cent of them thought "f——", but it's that 0.01 per cent that should also be thinking "f——" but wasn't is the thing I'm talking about—not some politician jumping for joy and having to compose him/herself.

but Craig you weren't talking about politicians in general you named two specifically. Neither of which I feel have been trying to make political capital out of this.

Iain wrote:It's all about politics, do you think that when the planes crashed into the twin towers, there wasn't a thought in Bush's or his neo-cons head about how now they could go after Saddam and Iraq?(

In the immediate aftermath no

Clarke says ID cards wouldn't have stopped the attacks, but "would help rather than hinder the ability to deal with particular terrorist threats". In the aftermath.

CraigGrannell wrote:Clarke says ID cards wouldn't have stopped the attacks, but "would help rather than hinder the ability to deal with particular terrorist threats". In the aftermath.

that's no different to what he was saying prior to the attacks so it hardly rates as trying to make political capital or being in two minds about the attacks as you suggested he was

Also he wasn't making a statement he was replying to a specific question asked to him by a journalist - what was he supposed to do not answer?

CraigGrannell wrote:My point was that I'm sure there was a glimmer in there that was thinking "politics". Subsequent speeches in the Commons seems to suggest that was the case. Perhaps 99.9 per cent of them thought "f——", but it's that 0.01 per cent that should also be thinking "f——" but wasn't is the thing I'm talking about—not some politician jumping for joy and having to compose him/herself.

Er.. is this the worldofstuart forum?