Viewing Thread:
"LONDON EXPLODED!!!1"

EDIT: Just pointing out that this post was made long before it was confirmed as intentional explosions.

Well, it has according to Sky News, the news vulture network. Huge red banners and claxons fill your eyes and ears whenever you skip past that channel. From a more reliable source (BBC News), I see there have been power surges and small explosions, which naturally have affected services.

This quote made me chortle:

"As I walked through the bus station I could see people lying on the ground, black, as if they'd been covered in smoke."

Obviously an out-of-towner.

Enjoy your day off work millions of Londoners!

monkey_man wrote:
> OddToe wrote:
> It can rectify.
>
> I'm a 'he', not an 'it'! MAN, Monkey_MAN!!!
>
> Go watch Sky News for some Disasterporn! It really is a
> horrendous little channel.

I was refering to the apology as an 'it'.

BBC showed a burnt man being resucitated(sp?), I was surprised seeing as it was only 11:30.

Tphi wrote:
> Cong_Man wrote:
> Birmingham or Manchester on the other hand...
>
> Tell people all round the world that Birmingham has been attacked..
> you'll get a resounding, "Muh?" London is infinately more
> well known and exposure is what they're after.

But at the same time if they could wipe out 500 people in one go in Birmingham, then that figure would be more resounding than whatever city it actually happened in.

All we have to go on though are the 'Skycopter', and other vague trickles of none-news. The best image of the 'carnage' is from a camera phone down the road from that bus. So who knows? There are people trapped in tunnels still, but no fires as there'd be smoke. If a fire had started on the trains it would have been awful. Anyone remember that fire on the train in Japan a few years back? Hundreds of people at once.

Chippxero wrote:
> I am surprised to see how small this has been victim wise, considering
> the number of people around at the time i would have thought it would
> be alot worse.
>
> This doesn't seem very Al-Quida(sp?) to me i thought they liked going
> for the big numbers.

The numbers are likely to rise though, if you read the eye-witness reports there are likely to be quite a few bodies retrieved from the Underground and they still need to work out hw many were on the bus, when they managed to put the jigsaw of limbs back together.

Even so, you are right, but I think it may just have been luck. I dare say whoever planted these bomb would have expected to wipe out whole tube trains and didn't count on the blasts going no further than the carriage they were on.

monkey_man wrote:
> Well, it has according to Sky News, the news vulture network. Huge
> red banners and claxons fill your eyes and ears whenever you skip
> past that channel. From a more reliable source (BBC News), I see
> there have been power surges and small explosions, which naturally
> have affected services.
>
> This quote made me chortle:
>
> "As I walked through the bus station I could see people lying
> on the ground, black, as if they'd been covered in smoke."
>
> Obviously an out-of-towner.
>
> Enjoy your day off work millions of Londoners!

OKAY!

Cong_Man wrote:
> Birmingham or Manchester on the other hand...

Tell people all round the world that Birmingham has been attacked.. you'll get a resounding, "Muh?" London is infinately more well known and exposure is what they're after.

Cong_Man wrote:
> Or maybe it's just more likey that capitals have a mass of people.
>
> All I'm saying is that other 'Major' cities are just as likely to be
> trageted.

I did consider that with the Pentagon being out of the way but a target, but I'm certain they could go they could go to any other major city and wouldn't face any opposition and could bomb away. But in the end, less people around the world would have heard of it.

I guess neo-terrorism is all shock and media based nowadays.

monkey_man wrote:
> Maybe I thought that changing the first message would be
> back-pedalling, and didn't want to do that?

Nah, for me - as untasteful as some might find it - taking things like this with a bit of humour is how I best cope.

A terrorist attack on London was inevitable, what with our "special relationship", Iraq, etc.etc. highlighting us as a target. Looking at Madrid, the casualty figures in London could have been a lot worse. Give it a couple of days, everyone will be talking about Big Brother again.

I am surprised to see how small this has been victim wise, considering the number of people around at the time i would have thought it would be alot worse.

This doesn't seem very Al-Quida(sp?) to me i thought they liked going for the big numbers.

Clazon wrote:
> That's unfounded.
>
> Look at Madrid (capital city), New York (most notable and beggist
> city in America). They only go for the biggest, major news, most well
> known cities in mass from what I've seen and heard.

Or maybe it's just more likey that capitals have a mass of people.

All I'm saying is that other 'Major' cities are just as likely to be trageted.