terrorism and publicity

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Roger Taylor

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 2:30:09 PM7/7/05
to

I've just retreated to my computer following a media onslaught about the
bombings in London. The incident is a bad one with quite a lot of
people killed and many more injured, but the coverage is not only total,
it's breathless, speculative and totally unhelpful - pointless, in a
word.

The aim of terrorists is not to destroy a society militarily but to
induce such panic and fear that it effectively destroys itself, and
publicity is fundamental to this. And the media are giving them
exposure worth literally tens of millions of pounds, *for free*.

Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
something has to be done.

Anyone got any ideas?

Cheers

Roger Taylor
www.alternativeparty.org.uk
www.hawklan.demon.co.uk/ki.htm
www.hawklan.demon.co.uk/sales.html
www.2asisters.org/english/

The real attitude of Tony Blair towards terrorism can be seen in his treatment
of the IRA

Rabid_Weasel

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 2:55:07 PM7/7/05
to

Roger Taylor wrote:

> Anyone got any ideas?

Public Apathy.

It's the only way to remove the viability of the vehicle of terror.

One tried and true method is Desensitization. In this case frequent media
coverage of the events with a undercurrent focus of "yeah, they bombed some
more stuff - but *YOU* are OK and everything is trundeling along. Business
as usual. No big deal."

I suspect that this is where Israel has gotten to, either design or
accident.

It may not be the best idea, but it is *an* idea. And it'd work too.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

Chas

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 3:03:50 PM7/7/05
to
"Roger Taylor" <roger_...@ReMovehawklan.demon.co.uk> wrote

> Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
> modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
> Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
> something has to be done.
> Anyone got any ideas?

Celebrate the retaliation against them as avidly as the event itself.
We're not 'proud' of kicking the snot out of terrs- there are so many
apologists that want us to 'see both sides', when there are only two;
supporting the motherfuckers, or killing them where you find them.
It's like the war against the Irish terrs- you decry them, but when the SAS
assassinates some in Gibraltar, everybody is outraged-
silly.

Chas


h...@nospam.com

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 3:26:44 PM7/7/05
to
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:03:50 -0600, "Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>"Roger Taylor" <roger_...@ReMovehawklan.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
>> modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
>> Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
>> something has to be done.
>> Anyone got any ideas?
>
>Celebrate the retaliation against them as avidly as the event itself.

So very wrong. And so very sad a man of your wisdom should feel this
way. This will only bring more acts of violence against us.


>We're not 'proud' of kicking the snot out of terrs- there are so many
>apologists that want us to 'see both sides', when there are only two;
>supporting the motherfuckers, or killing them where you find them.

Bullshit. So wrong. So sad. There is another <should be> obvious
answer. Wanna take a, uh, stab at it?

Hal

laszlo_...@freemail.hu

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 3:50:40 PM7/7/05
to

Correct. The attention given to terrorist attacks is far, _far_ out of
proportion with the loss of life.

There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
mortality rate from bathmats.

I'm not saying it wasn't a significant event, because it was, of
course. I'm saying that logically speaking, it doesn't justify the
hysteria at all.

Laszlo

olaf

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 4:52:43 PM7/7/05
to

<h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:na0rc1t27g6anvfvt...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:03:50 -0600, "Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"Roger Taylor" <roger_...@ReMovehawklan.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>> Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
>>> modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
>>> Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
>>> something has to be done.
>>> Anyone got any ideas?
>>
>>Celebrate the retaliation against them as avidly as the event itself.
>
> So very wrong. And so very sad a man of your wisdom should feel this
> way. This will only bring more acts of violence against us.

The WTC attack was before the invasion of Afghanistan and the war
on Iraq. Just being alive seems to bring on acts of violence. The
choice is only if you want to live as a coward? For my part, I'm
suspecting that a lot of Brits who were against the war will now
begin to support it - unless they've changed a great deal from what
they were like during the Battle of Britain.


Chas

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 5:16:19 PM7/7/05
to
<h...@nospam.com> wrote
>......This will only bring more acts of violence against us.

And there is a difference between that prospect and what's happening
presently exactly how?

Chas


Chas

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 5:19:46 PM7/7/05
to
<laszlo_...@freemail.hu> wrote

> Correct. The attention given to terrorist attacks is far, _far_ out of
> proportion with the loss of life.

That's not the criteria you stupid insensitive lickspittle motherfucker.

> There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
> mortality rate from bathmats.

And 700 injured- by the deliberate and callous act of killing for publicity-
that doesn't offend you on a very basic level?

> I'm not saying it wasn't a significant event, because it was, of
> course. I'm saying that logically speaking, it doesn't justify the
> hysteria at all.

Fuck you- you'd suck a dick if someone threatened you with an indian burn;
Disgusting fucking cowardly cocksucker.

Chas


Pierre Honeyman

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 5:24:12 PM7/7/05
to

laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:

> There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
> mortality rate from bathmats.

Hey, refresh my memory, but when was the last time a bathmat shut down
a transit system that services 8 million people just so it could make a
point?

Pierre

laszlo_...@freemail.hu

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 5:35:02 PM7/7/05
to

Chas wrote:
> <laszlo_...@freemail.hu> wrote
> > Correct. The attention given to terrorist attacks is far, _far_ out of
> > proportion with the loss of life.
>
> That's not the criteria you stupid insensitive lickspittle motherfucker.

Why insensitive?

> > There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
> > mortality rate from bathmats.
>
> And 700 injured- by the deliberate and callous act of killing for publicity-
> that doesn't offend you on a very basic level?

Sure, it does. That goes without saying.

So, you think we should give them the publicity they killed for?

> > I'm not saying it wasn't a significant event, because it was, of
> > course. I'm saying that logically speaking, it doesn't justify the
> > hysteria at all.
>
> Fuck you- you'd suck a dick if someone threatened you with an indian burn;
> Disgusting fucking cowardly cocksucker.

*shrug* I have no idea why you think I'm cowardly.

Let's discuss it when you're in a more reasonable frame of mind.

Regarding my actual point: do you think the hysteria is justified, or
useful?

Laszlo

laszlo_...@freemail.hu

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 5:41:58 PM7/7/05
to

What does that have to do with anything?

My bathmat comparison was merely to show that the loss of life was
fairly small. The fear that many people in London must feel now is not
rational, and it's not helpful, either. And while I don't live in
London and don't know how the local media is reacting, I'm willing to
bet that it's also not helping.

Laszlo

Strider

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 6:05:48 PM7/7/05
to

Although the casualties were rather small, I think it's about intent.
50, 500, 5,000, 50,000, 5 Million, no matter. I think they would do it
if they could and will some day.

Historically, Moslems seem to start this crap every few hundred years.
It never ends until the civilized world reduces the numbers of Moslems
to controllable levels.

This is why the attention. Much of the population of the civilized
world know this. Many are oblivious.

Strider

T

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 6:16:12 PM7/7/05
to
Chas wrote:
> <laszlo_...@freemail.hu> wrote
>
>>Correct. The attention given to terrorist attacks is far, _far_ out of
>>proportion with the loss of life.
>
>
> That's not the criteria you stupid insensitive lickspittle motherfucker.
>
>
>>There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
>>mortality rate from bathmats.
>
>
> And 700 injured- by the deliberate and callous act of killing for publicity-
> that doesn't offend you on a very basic level?
>
Roughly 30 and 300, gospel according to Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050707/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices


Very offensive; just don't know what to do about it.

Badger_South

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 6:46:10 PM7/7/05
to

When things get tough the tough go out on the road and kick their own ass.
it may not help anything but it's a good way to get in some additional
training while you work out the helplessness and rage.

-B

Pierre Honeyman

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 6:50:03 PM7/7/05
to

laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:
> Pierre Honeyman wrote:
> > laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:
> >
> > > There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
> > > mortality rate from bathmats.
> >
> > Hey, refresh my memory, but when was the last time a bathmat shut down
> > a transit system that services 8 million people just so it could make a
> > point?
>
> What does that have to do with anything?

I dunno, you brought up bathmats.

Pierre

si

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 7:19:14 PM7/7/05
to

"Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PKqdndw2Xt4...@comcast.com...


Maybe we could send them on the Yellow Bamboo starter course.

Either they will 'get in touch with their inner child energy' or, they will
kill the yellow bamboo.

Its a win win situation.


Don Wagner

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 7:27:59 PM7/7/05
to
laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:
>Why insensitive?

Because deaths from this crap are cause for civilized people to be
sensitive. You are equating deaths with airtime, hence you are being
insensitive.
--Don--
The association of motorcycles with LSD is no accident of publicity.
They are both a means to an end, to the place of definitions.
~ HST '65

h...@nospam.com

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 7:20:44 PM7/7/05
to

So when you signing up, pussy?

Oh, wait, you're just one of the scared ones. Sorry. Feel free to
live on in your violent revenge fantasies, however. At least there
you can be a big man.

Hal

>
>Strider

Strider

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 7:53:27 PM7/7/05
to

I'm waiting, Hal. Just come see me sometime.

I suggest that you keep one form if ID in a waterproof baggie in your
sock. This should indicate what your desire is as to the disposition
of your dead body. Otherwise, you will be unceremoniously submerged
into the Holston River where you will fulfill your destiny as food for
catfish.

In your memory, I will frequent the area in pursuit of one of my
favorite pastimes, fishing for catfish.

Come on! You know you want to come see me.

Strider
>
>>
>>Strider

hcannon

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 8:02:49 PM7/7/05
to

> >
> >Although the casualties were rather small, I think it's about intent.
> >50, 500, 5,000, 50,000, 5 Million, no matter. I think they would do it
> >if they could and will some day.

Better said if you used the term radical Moslems.

>> So when you signing up, pussy?

Why Hal you know this is jsut another one of your fantasy "Islamic bogeyman"
operations.

> Oh, wait, you're just one of the scared ones. Sorry. Feel free to
> live on in your violent revenge fantasies, however. At least there
> you can be a big man.
>

Having another Walter Mitty moment with the Marines are we?


hcannon

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 8:13:18 PM7/7/05
to

> >Celebrate the retaliation against them as avidly as the event itself.
>
> So very wrong. And so very sad a man of your wisdom should feel this
> way. This will only bring more acts of violence against us.

Baloney - Radicals kill you simply because you are the infidel and they are
supposed to kill you. They need no provocation. Try harder to catch on.
Otherwise your only usefulness to the rest of us is as a human sandbag to
block their fire.

>We're not 'proud' of kicking the snot out of terrs- there are so many
> >apologists that want us to 'see both sides', when there are only two;
> >supporting the motherfuckers, or killing them where you find them.
>
> Bullshit. So wrong. So sad. There is another <should be> obvious
> answer. Wanna take a, uh, stab at it?
>

Not really because the answer is - die.


hcannon

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 8:14:38 PM7/7/05
to

> Maybe we could send them on the Yellow Bamboo starter course.
>
> Either they will 'get in touch with their inner child energy' or, they
will
> kill the yellow bamboo.
>
> Its a win win situation.

Shame on you I am sure that is against the Geneva convention as torture.


hcannon

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 8:48:38 PM7/7/05
to

>
> I've just retreated to my computer following a media onslaught about the
> bombings in London. The incident is a bad one with quite a lot of
> people killed and many more injured, but the coverage is not only total,
> it's breathless, speculative and totally unhelpful - pointless, in a
> word.

Welcome to the wacky wonderful world of journalism - if it bleeds it leads!!
The whole time that crime was in a downward spiral in the US - the news
reporting of crime went up 50% giving the impression of a terrible crime
wave. Rather stupid really.

> The aim of terrorists is not to destroy a society militarily but to
> induce such panic and fear that it effectively destroys itself, and
> publicity is fundamental to this. And the media are giving them
> exposure worth literally tens of millions of pounds, *for free*.

The aim is to destroy or cripple your infrastructure and hurt your economy
( ie the tube stopped and anthrax in the mail for us ) until any demands
they make are rewarded with your compliance in the hopes of peace.
Of course demands then become never ending

Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
> modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
> Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
> something has to be done.

They also cause a lot of waste - (ie descreation of Korans - which after
spending millions on an investigation turned out to be utter BS ) and, of
course they forgive themselves their errors immediately and call for others
heads when they do the same.

> Anyone got any ideas?

Somehow get to the sponsors and the advertisers, threaten with TV black
outs? However, I doubt that you will ever hold them responsible. I have
read books by supposedly well qualified individuals and run across to many
outright fabrications by authors with agendas ( axes to grind).


Fraser Johnston

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 9:28:13 PM7/7/05
to

"Roger Taylor" <roger_...@ReMovehawklan.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wbeXQNAxSXzCFwd$@hawklan.demon.co.uk...

>
> I've just retreated to my computer following a media onslaught about the
> bombings in London. The incident is a bad one with quite a lot of
> people killed and many more injured, but the coverage is not only total,
> it's breathless, speculative and totally unhelpful - pointless, in a
> word.
>
> The aim of terrorists is not to destroy a society militarily but to
> induce such panic and fear that it effectively destroys itself, and
> publicity is fundamental to this. And the media are giving them
> exposure worth literally tens of millions of pounds, *for free*.
>
> Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
> modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
> Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
> something has to be done.
>
> Anyone got any ideas?

Kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out. Or send 'em to Fraserland.

Fraser


Fraser Johnston

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 9:30:26 PM7/7/05
to

"Roger Taylor" <roger_...@ReMovehawklan.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wbeXQNAxSXzCFwd$@hawklan.demon.co.uk...
>
> I've just retreated to my computer following a media onslaught about the
> bombings in London. The incident is a bad one with quite a lot of
> people killed and many more injured, but the coverage is not only total,
> it's breathless, speculative and totally unhelpful - pointless, in a
> word.
>
> The aim of terrorists is not to destroy a society militarily but to
> induce such panic and fear that it effectively destroys itself, and
> publicity is fundamental to this. And the media are giving them
> exposure worth literally tens of millions of pounds, *for free*.
>
> Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
> modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
> Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
> something has to be done.
>
> Anyone got any ideas?

As I was reading this post someone walked into my office and said there
daughter was going to London next week. The girl she is going to stay with
should of been at Kings Cross station at the time of the bombing but had
chicken pox and couldn't go. Bet she's glad she got sick. This sort of
shit really effects everyone.

Fraser


Fraser Johnston

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 9:33:58 PM7/7/05
to

<laszlo_...@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:1120772517.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> What does that have to do with anything?
>
> My bathmat comparison was merely to show that the loss of life was
> fairly small. The fear that many people in London must feel now is not
> rational, and it's not helpful, either. And while I don't live in
> London and don't know how the local media is reacting, I'm willing to
> bet that it's also not helping.

That just shows your sociopathic tendencies. Non sociopaths see those 30+
dead as husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, son and daughters. You know.
People who didn't deserve to die for getting on a bus to go to work.

Fraser


Fraser Johnston

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 9:34:46 PM7/7/05
to

"Strider" <str...@usit.net> wrote in message
news:2qfrc1pqndk1g8afr...@4ax.com...

> I'm waiting, Hal. Just come see me sometime.
>
> I suggest that you keep one form if ID in a waterproof baggie in your
> sock. This should indicate what your desire is as to the disposition
> of your dead body. Otherwise, you will be unceremoniously submerged
> into the Holston River where you will fulfill your destiny as food for
> catfish.
>
> In your memory, I will frequent the area in pursuit of one of my
> favorite pastimes, fishing for catfish.
>
> Come on! You know you want to come see me.

It'll make the fish taste gamey.

Fraser


Strider

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 9:48:05 PM7/7/05
to

Perhaps, but just knowing I contributed to their survival will make it
all worth it.

Strider

si

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 12:27:29 AM7/8/05
to

"hcannon" <hcan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ztjze.44480$rb6.42994@lakeread07...

You're right - no one deserves to go on the Yellow Bamboo course. My
appologies for my extreme over-reaction. I was too harsh...


Rich

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 6:09:01 AM7/8/05
to
olaf wrote:

> The WTC attack was before the invasion of Afghanistan and the war
> on Iraq. Just being alive seems to bring on acts of violence. The
> choice is only if you want to live as a coward? For my part, I'm
> suspecting that a lot of Brits who were against the war will now
> begin to support it - unless they've changed a great deal from what
> they were like during the Battle of Britain.

As a Brit, my opinion is that this is not going to be the case. No-one
in the UK missed out on Sep. 11th or Madrid, or honestly thought the UK
wasn't up at the top of the list. Opposition to the war in Iraq has
little to do with Al-Qaeda; in fact, it's precisely the tenuousness of
the Iraq/Al-Qaeda link that put a lot of people against it.

On the other hand, I think there will be more support for a restriction
of civil liberties, and also for future direct military action against
extreme Islam.

Cheers
Rich

Rich

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 8:21:32 AM7/8/05
to

They're just biding their time, those sneaky bathroom-living
motherfuckers.

:P
Rich

Rich

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 8:31:29 AM7/8/05
to
laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:

> My bathmat comparison was merely to show that the loss of life was
> fairly small. The fear that many people in London must feel now is not
> rational, and it's not helpful, either. And while I don't live in
> London and don't know how the local media is reacting, I'm willing to
> bet that it's also not helping.

It has had a much smaller effect than most people seem to think.
Remember, London's been bombed by terrorists before.

Irrespective of the scale and impact of the 9/11 attacks, and they were
terrible, there was a huge panic in the US primarily because it was the
first foreign terrorist attack on US soil. It was like the first time
you get slapped; the outrage at being slapped at all is as great as the
pain.

I have friends and family in London - all well, thankfully - and they
all take a view far closer to Laszlo's (however tactlessly put) than
the others here; in a city of ten million, there's not much point
living in fear that you're going to be one of a few attacked, and
especially not since there's nothing you can do about it and it's not
exactly a daily occurrence.

The media are outraged, but not really hysterical; at least, the media
I've seen.

Cheers
Rich

Rabid_Weasel

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 10:04:10 AM7/8/05
to
Chas wrote:
> <laszlo_...@freemail.hu> wrote
> > Correct. The attention given to terrorist attacks is far, _far_ out
of
> > proportion with the loss of life.
>
> That's not the criteria you stupid insensitive lickspittle
motherfucker.

I think you're being a bit harsh. Though it seems insensitive, it's, in a
literal sense, quite true. When's the last time you saw every media outlet
from "Auntie Pinko" to Clark Howard all talking about the same 40 deaths?
There are dozens of things that kill more people then that yearly but none
get the same media attention, not even criminal murder.


> > There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
> > mortality rate from bathmats.
>
> And 700 injured- by the deliberate and callous act of killing for
publicity-
> that doesn't offend you on a very basic level?

Sure. Makes me see red.

But that's not the nature of the question and the offered solution. The
question is "how do we make terrorists not want to blow up busses and
stuff?" One possible solution is to look at what imediate effect they
hope to gain. That effect is: exaggerated media attention in order to
create "terror." One way to mitigate the exaggerated media attention is
to create some perspective by contrasting the raw number of deaths against
deaths, though still tragic, caused by something considered rather mundane
an unworthy of comment such as falls in the bathroom.


> > I'm not saying it wasn't a significant event, because it was, of
> > course. I'm saying that logically speaking, it doesn't justify the
> > hysteria at all.
>
> Fuck you- you'd suck a dick if someone threatened you with an indian
burn;
> Disgusting fucking cowardly cocksucker.

I'm not sure where you got that from. At worst Laszlo's comments could be
considered callous, insenstive, or unsympathetic, but I'm just not getting
cowardly.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

Rabid_Weasel

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 10:08:52 AM7/8/05
to

That's not the point. As I said to Chas, it goes to the nature of the


question and the offered solution. The question is "how do we make
terrorists not want to blow up busses and stuff?" One possible solution
is to look at what imediate effect they hope to gain. That effect is:
exaggerated media attention in order to create "terror." One way to
mitigate the exaggerated media attention is to create some perspective by
contrasting the raw number of deaths against deaths, though still tragic,

caused by something considered rather mundane and unworthy of comment such


as falls in the bathroom.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

Rabid_Weasel

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 10:18:34 AM7/8/05
to

Don Wagner wrote:
> laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:
> >Why insensitive?
>
> Because deaths from this crap are cause for civilized people to be
> sensitive. You are equating deaths with airtime, hence you are being
> insensitive.

Well, that *was* kinda a prerequisite of my suggestion.

Remember that I suggested one possible solution would be Public Apathy.
This would remove the "terror" caused by the attack and the subsequent
media attention. One way to create this Public Apathy is through
desensitization - attack after attack until it's considerd "normal" and
not worth comment. Another way is for a concerted campain underscoring
that, though unconscionable, the attack(s) are really pretty small scale
and *YOU* are still alive, almost *everyone* you know is still alive and
unharmed, and the infrastructure is still working just fine. Yet another
way, as Laszlo points out, is by creating a sense of "perspective" by
contrasting the number of actual deaths against deaths by "mundane" events
such as bathroom falls.

If Laszlo seems somewhat dispassionate, remember that this is a 100%
accademic discussion (since none of these are likely to happen and even if
so none of us are going to be implementing them) and accademic discussions
are often dispassionate (perhaps even better that way).

Heck, Laszlo could theoretically claim that the rest of us are being
insensitive by not raising a huhe and cry over the number of deaths and
injuries caused by easily preventable bathroom falls. :P

I can't believe it's not a Badger!

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 10:24:28 AM7/8/05
to

Rich wrote:
> laszlo_...@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> > My bathmat comparison was merely to show that the loss of life was
> > fairly small. The fear that many people in London must feel now is not
> > rational, and it's not helpful, either. And while I don't live in
> > London and don't know how the local media is reacting, I'm willing to
> > bet that it's also not helping.
>
> It has had a much smaller effect than most people seem to think.
> Remember, London's been bombed by terrorists before.

So, you're saying that people there are somewhat desensitized by
repeated attacks, have come to realize that *they* are alive as are
almost *everyone* they know, and that they can put it in perspective by
contrasting against deaths caused by mundane events?

Now where have I heard that before? ;-)


> I have friends and family in London - all well, thankfully -

I'm glad to hear that.


> and they
> all take a view far closer to Laszlo's (however tactlessly put)

I'm not sure how tactless it really was. It was in the context of an
accademic discussion, after all.


> The media are outraged, but not really hysterical; at least, the media
> I've seen.

Good to hear. This will help actual *action* to be taken I think.

If there's no (or little) hysteria then people can quickly get back to
their lives and take the "terror" away from the terrorists who will
have thus failed.

Roger Taylor

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 10:26:00 AM7/8/05
to
olaf writes

>The WTC attack was before the invasion of Afghanistan and the war
>on Iraq. Just being alive seems to bring on acts of violence. The
>choice is only if you want to live as a coward? For my part, I'm
>suspecting that a lot of Brits who were against the war will now
>begin to support it - unless they've changed a great deal from what
>they were like during the Battle of Britain.

I don't think the war has anything to do with this. These people are
psychopaths who need no reason to kill at random, and gullible
inadequates who just want someone to tell them what to do.

As for wartime Britain, I think it's still there somewhere, but it's
pretty deep undercover. One of our problems is that we *do* need a
great deal of provoking.

Cheers

Roger Taylor
www.alternativeparty.org.uk
www.hawklan.demon.co.uk/ki.htm
www.hawklan.demon.co.uk/sales.html
www.2asisters.org/english/

The real attitude of Tony Blair towards terrorism can be seen in his treatment
of the IRA

Roger Taylor

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 9:56:31 AM7/8/05
to
Rabid_Weasel writes
>Public Apathy.
>It's the only way to remove the viability of the vehicle of terror.
>One tried and true method is Desensitization. In this case frequent media
>coverage of the events with a undercurrent focus of "yeah, they bombed some
>more stuff - but *YOU* are OK and everything is trundeling along. Business
>as usual. No big deal."

I don't know. Public apathy is pretty much the norm in most things
these days anyway thanks to the oafs we've put in charge, but it simply
seems to prompt the media into ever more hyperbole - somehow they seem
to be locked into the early 20th Century where 'the scoop was the
thing!'

It'll probably take the conspicuous slaughter of a senior editor,
watched by his colleagues, before anything worthwhile will be done

Roger Taylor

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 10:21:09 AM7/8/05
to

>Pierre Honeyman wrote:
>> Hey, refresh my memory, but when was the last time a bathmat shut down
>> a transit system that services 8 million people just so it could make a
>> point?

>They're just biding their time, those sneaky bathroom-living
>motherfuckers.

Ought to be banned

Roger Taylor

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 10:15:29 AM7/8/05
to
Chas writes

>Celebrate the retaliation against them as avidly as the event itself.
>We're not 'proud' of kicking the snot out of terrs- there are so many
>apologists that want us to 'see both sides', when there are only two;
>supporting the motherfuckers, or killing them where you find them.
>It's like the war against the Irish terrs- you decry them, but when the SAS
>assassinates some in Gibraltar, everybody is outraged-
>silly.

Gotta catch them first, Chas. I'm certainly for fighting them on all
fronts - financial, diplomatic, overt and covert violence, screw their
funding up, do deals with supporting governments etc, whatever. And, of
course, as in any fight, 100% commitment. Sadly, regarding this last we
come back to our snivelling common denominator, Tony. A 'leader' who's
just another part of the problem - so it goes.

Roger Taylor

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 10:19:29 AM7/8/05
to

Thanks, Herbert. I agree pretty much totally. As I said in another
reply, I don't think the media will begin to behave responsibly until
one of their senior editors is murdered when his colleagues have been
gathered around to watch

Roger Taylor

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 10:05:58 AM7/8/05
to

><laszlo_...@freemail.hu> wrote
>> Correct. The attention given to terrorist attacks is far, _far_ out of
>> proportion with the loss of life.
>
>That's not the criteria you stupid insensitive lickspittle motherfucker.
>
>> There were what, 40-50 people killed? That's less than the annual
>> mortality rate from bathmats.
>
>And 700 injured- by the deliberate and callous act of killing for publicity-
>that doesn't offend you on a very basic level?
>
>> I'm not saying it wasn't a significant event, because it was, of
>> course. I'm saying that logically speaking, it doesn't justify the
>> hysteria at all.
>
>Fuck you- you'd suck a dick if someone threatened you with an indian burn;
>Disgusting fucking cowardly cocksucker.

Bit harsh, Chas. We shouldn't confuse two things. The violent death of
anyone is a 100% tragedy for kin and friends. Most of us have been
there and wouldn't wish it on a dog. But media presentation and,
particularly, Government response, needs to be proportionate. While
this was indeed an atrocity, only 40 people have been killed - as
opposed to the 40 or 50 who die violent deaths in the UK *every day* -
and it did not warrant the massive and hysterical coverage that it
received and is still receiving, especially as this is doing *precisely
what the terrorists want*. 20 full pages in the Daily Telegraph -
advertising value £920,000 - all the other papers are the same as are
the radio and TV stations. It's just wrong.

hcannon

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 10:42:16 AM7/8/05
to

> > I'm waiting, Hal. Just come see me sometime.
> >
> > I suggest that you keep one form if ID in a waterproof baggie in your
> > sock. This should indicate what your desire is as to the disposition
> > of your dead body. Otherwise, you will be unceremoniously submerged
> > into the Holston River where you will fulfill your destiny as food for
> > catfish.
> >
> > In your memory, I will frequent the area in pursuit of one of my
> > favorite pastimes, fishing for catfish.
> >
> > Come on! You know you want to come see me.
>
> It'll make the fish taste gamey.
>
Now that was really funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


hcannon

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 10:45:20 AM7/8/05
to

> > > Maybe we could send them on the Yellow Bamboo starter course.
> > >
> > > Either they will 'get in touch with their inner child energy' or, they
> > will
> > > kill the yellow bamboo.
> > >
> > > Its a win win situation.
> >
> > Shame on you I am sure that is against the Geneva convention as torture.
> >
> >
>
> You're right - no one deserves to go on the Yellow Bamboo course. My
> appologies for my extreme over-reaction. I was too harsh...
>

Not to mention you have descrated the, sniff, Yellow Bamboo crap er
curriculum.


hcannon

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 10:46:42 AM7/8/05
to

>
> As I was reading this post someone walked into my office and said there
> daughter was going to London next week. The girl she is going to stay
with
> should of been at Kings Cross station at the time of the bombing but had
> chicken pox and couldn't go. Bet she's glad she got sick. This sort of
> shit really effects everyone.

Amen.


hcannon

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 11:01:47 AM7/8/05
to

> >> Hey, refresh my memory, but when was the last time a bathmat shut down
> >> a transit system that services 8 million people just so it could make a
> >> point?
>
> >They're just biding their time, those sneaky bathroom-living
> >motherfuckers.
>
> Ought to be banned
>
Just the assault bathmats and the 50 caliber ones though.


hcannon

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 11:18:42 AM7/8/05
to

>

> As a Brit, my opinion is that this is not going to be the case. No-one
> in the UK missed out on Sep. 11th or Madrid, or honestly thought the UK
> wasn't up at the top of the list.

You are not very up on Al Qaeda are you? You have been on their list for a
long, long time.

Opposition to the war in Iraq has
> little to do with Al-Qaeda; in fact, it's precisely the tenuousness of
> the Iraq/Al-Qaeda link that put a lot of people against it.

Past tense. Al Qaeda is in Iraq now and has been for a long time. I have
been reading recent articles in your recent "Ecomomist " about radical
Moslems in Europe ( who are now being fed into Iraq), in the last issue of
the Journal of Foreign Affairs ( " Europe's Angry Moslems") and even in some
books ( "Al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe - the Afghan Bosnia Connnection"by
Hollman). France has also been high on the list ( a plot was discovered some
time ago to blow the Eiffel tower and even Australia - all of this was
before Iraq and even 9-11). One book on Al Qaeda I read said the French
police referred to London as Londonstan. There is a problem and it is not
going to go away.

> On the other hand, I think there will be more support for a restriction
> of civil liberties, and also for future direct military action against
> extreme Islam.

Unfortunately you are correct. Like the French General who wrote the book
"Battle for the Casbah" said - " If what is happening to Algerian villages
was happening to French villages the French govt would be saying stop this
any way you can." However we have to be careful because if they turn us into
what we do not want to be they have won.
As far as extreme Islam - it is bent on destroying us. We need to quit
worrying about who kicked a Koran while the other side is sawing off heads.


Sensei Shaolin

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 11:13:11 AM7/8/05
to
Roger Taylor wrote:
> I've just retreated to my computer following a media onslaught about the
> bombings in London. The incident is a bad one with quite a lot of
> people killed and many more injured, but the coverage is not only total,
> it's breathless, speculative and totally unhelpful - pointless, in a
> word.
>
> The aim of terrorists is not to destroy a society militarily but to
> induce such panic and fear that it effectively destroys itself, and
> publicity is fundamental to this. And the media are giving them
> exposure worth literally tens of millions of pounds, *for free*.
>
> Whether they like it or not, the media are now *active participants* in
> modern terrorism - hostages aren't killed until everyone's watching.
> Censoring them would, of course, be a major terrorist victory, but
> something has to be done.
>
> Anyone got any ideas?


You do what your forefathers would have done. You keep going to work.
You keep riding on your buses and subways. You keep flying on
airplanes and keep going on holiday when you damn well please. You
keep going to restaurants and bars to have a good time. Basically, you
don't let the terrorists have the satisfaction of thinking you are
afraid.

How England responds to this barbaric t