London

[DaSharkie]

Thoughts and prayers to our friends, brothers, and sisters in London today.

For those that haven't heard, 7 bombs split between subways and double-decker buses. God know how many dead and injured by the F&*$%@g terrorists. Some reports of suicide bombers on a bus. F*#$%^g useless scumbags.

Excuse my anger.

Sadly, I think it is only a matter of time before this comes to our shores.

[firemedicak]

Amen.....

And I agree, it's only a matter of time before this horror becomes common within our Nation.

[IAMedic]

Sadly, I think it is only a matter of time before this comes to our shores.

I'm just surprised another attack hasn't happened on our soil.

[SteelMaiden]

Wow, take a few days of vacation and see what goes on in the world. My prayers to all the families affected. Be prepared, I think we will probably be on someone's list again, it's been a few years.

[EMSsquirrel]

I recall watching a movie on PBS, produced by the BBC, called "Dirty War."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/dirty_war/default.stm) It was about what would happen if terrorists detonated a dirty bomb in London. When I heard about the bombings, the first thing I thought was, "<expletive> <expletive> <expletive>. The movie's coming true."

Not that what happened was good, but I'm very relieved that it didn't involve any WMDs.

I have some more thoughts on this... but I'll do everyone a favor, and make them coherent before I post them.

- Greg

[EMSsquirrel]

The recent terror attacks in London were tragic, but they also brought several issues to light. I'd like to touch on them a little bit.

First, let's examine the target. The transportation system in a capital city. Simultaneous detonations of bombs on trains. Almost exactly the same as the attacks in Madrid. Obviously, transportation systems are weaknesses. Public transportation systems are large, and as such, they are hard to patrol. Public transportation systems are mobile. Threats can move quickly. Public transportation systems are frequented by many, many people every day. There are plenty of "shady" or "suspicious" characters riding public transit. Who is a terrorist, and who is just an eccentric drunk? And how many bags get accidentally left behind every day on, for example, in the New York City subway system? Is that briefcase full of paperwork, or a dirty bomb? Public transportation systems are, in most large cities, vital to moving mass numbers of people. London. Madrid. N.Y.C. Washington D.C. They all rely heavily on trains to move people. When you shut down the trains, you stop people from moving. What if those people had to evacuate an area?

Something else disturbing about attacks on transit systems is that they target nobody in particular. On 9/11/01, the Pentagon was attacked. It is a symbol of American military might. The World Trade Center was attacked. It was a symbol of American economic power. The White House or Capitol were rumored to be possible targets for the fourth hijacked plane. They are symbols of American democracy. The 9/11 attacks struck at symbols of what we as Americans hold dear. We stopped and stared in shock, as if we had, as a nation, just been slapped in the face.

Attacks on a public transit system don't target military might, or economic power, or democracy, or anything else. They attack the single mother on her way to the market with her baby. They attack the steel mill worker on his way to a 12 hour shift. They attack the office assistant who works for a large corporation. While transportation systems serve certain areas, there's no guarantee that a certain, exclusive group will be on the bus or train when it is attacked. When the terrorists have no goal other than to kill people, it's not a stretch of the imagination to picture London, Madrid, or N.Y.C. as the next Israel, where busses and cafes blow up randomly and terrorists kill indiscriminately.

Another thing I've found interesting is, as I've alluded to before, there were no weapons of mass destruction used. No dirty bombs. No chemical agents. Hopefully, there were no biological agents. Terrorists want to cause death and destruction, strike fear into people, and generally foul things up. Common sense would dictate that, if they had these weapons, they would use them. The bombs already blew up. Dispersing radioactive material with them, as in "Dirty War," is not much more work. So, either the terrorists don't have these weapons, or we are actually doing something to prevent them from dispersing them. Or, for some reason, the terrorists don't want to use them now. I'm hoping for one of the first two options.

When terrorism is just about blowing things up, it becomes much harder to prevent. The speculation has been flying. London was just awarded the Olympics, but I would think this attack was organized beforehand. Obviously, it took much planning. The G8 summit was also going on, but not where the attacks were. I think it's much more likely that the attacks were meant to send a signal to the "Great Eight" that they're not as powerful as they think they are, but I don't know. That's the problem. We don't know. Has anyone said, "we set off these bombs because of ... the G8 summit? ... the Olympics? ... the War in Iraq? ... something else?"

Terrorism is a means to accomplish a political objective. But what the hell do they want England to do? England can't give in to demands if there are no demands. England can't predict future targets if they don't know what made them a target this time.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And crime, such as terrorism, is a combination of opportunity and desire. We all must be ever vigilant now, even moreso than before. We can't eliminate the desire, but we must limit the opportunity, wherever it may be. So much has been said about the ability to respond to a terrorist attack, but regardless of how we respond to it, it still happened. Our best protection lies in prevention, and if this means sacrificing some personal liberties some of the time, then so be it. Freedom can only be enjoyed by the living.

- Greg

[DaSharkie]

Sorry Greg, I have to disagree with you on a couple of things:

These terds will stop at nothing to destroy the western world.

I will not sacrifice my own personal liberties and eliminate ways to defend myself. To do so lets them win. No one needs to sacrifice liberties.

There is nothing that can be done to stop these bastards aside from killing them. Either you enforce laws and deport the illegals (which the ACLU pisses and moans about) or you tighten the borders (which the ACLU and the flaming liberals piss and moan about.)

If you are going to fight a war against people (the war on terror) then friggin' fight it. Do what is necessary to protect as many people as possible.

They cannot and will not be reformed. They cannot be coddled and cajoled. They cannot be appeased. Death is thte only way for them to stop.

I struggle withthis because of my faith, and feelings that life is precious, but I also must deal with the reality of the world. It is a sad state of affairs, but it is reality. I will not sacrifice my liberties and not recieve safety, defense, and protection in its place.

[Nate]

I never thought I'd ever say this, but when I learned of the news yesterday morning I wasn't shocked. Maybe that seems odd, or maybe that is just how freaking wacked out our world is that people aren't shocked by bombings. (There wasn't hours and hours of coverage on US stations...they reverted back to the regular line up.)

I work five miles away from four plants that make up about 60-80% of the oil production in the US. I look out the front door and I see Shell Oil sitting there...and I wonder how long? Will it happen on my shift? Phillips 66 is down the road about a mile, Dupont is next door to Shell, are they going today?

Now I question myself as to if I really want to bring children into this world one day...what is normal and where did it go?

[EMSsquirrel]

Sorry Greg, I have to disagree with you on a couple of things:

These terds will stop at nothing to destroy the western world.

Did I say otherwise?

I will not sacrifice my own personal liberties and eliminate ways to defend myself. To do so lets them win. No one needs to sacrifice liberties.

We sacrifice personal liberties frequently. We can't just walk onto an airplane like we did before. We must submit to searches. Do you refuse to do that? Do you refuse to have your bags checked when attending a major sporting event? Do you refuse to stop and open your trunk for a check when directed to do so by police at a checkpoint at a tunnel or other security risk? Do you carefully avoid security cameras?

There is nothing that can be done to stop these bastards aside from killing them. Either you enforce laws and deport the illegals (which the ACLU pisses and moans about) or you tighten the borders (which the ACLU and the flaming liberals piss and moan about.)

Maybe the ACLU is just an Al Qaeda sleeper cell?

Besides, I didn't say we shouldn't kill the terrorists. But until we can get rid of all of them, do you propose we don't safeguard our nation by limiting their opportunities to strike? It seems to me like deporting illegals and tightening borders ... (*gasp!*) limits opportunities. I don't really see how you're disagreeing with me there.

If you are going to fight a war against people (the war on terror) then friggin' fight it. Do what is necessary to protect as many people as possible.

I was all for turning the whole area into a glass parking lot after 9/11, and I still stand by that opinion. Unfortunately, I'm not the Commander in Chief, so my powers to launch nukes, order carrier battle groups to the Med, and dispatch stealth bombers and B-52s are somewhat limited. Sorry I can't help ya there. But if you want to give be an M-16 and a plane ticket to Baghdad International Airport, I'll gladly go over there and start waxing them all. I can't say I'd last long, but we'll give it the old college try, eh?

They cannot and will not be reformed. They cannot be coddled and cajoled. They cannot be appeased. Death is thte only way for them to stop.

Again, where exactly did I say, "we should coddle and cajole terrorists?" My comments regarding giving into demands had nothing to do with what we should do. My comments were regarding the "standard" definition of terrorism. This is what the intel community uses, per 22 USC 2656f(d): "The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

What do they want to influence the audience to do? Not host the Olympics? Not host the G8? Get out of Iraq? Stop selling fish and chips? Drive on the right side of the road? I never said that they should do any of these things, but if we know why the terrorists attacked, it's easier to prevent them from attacking related targets.

For example, if the terrorists had a problem with the G8 summit, then protecting all the shops that sell fish and chips is moronic. EXCEPT, if this attack had nothing to do with anything except killing (which is highly likely). In which case, please read my statement in my earlier post: "When the terrorists have no goal other than to kill people, it's not a stretch of the imagination to picture London, Madrid, or N.Y.C. as the next Israel, where busses and cafes blow up randomly and terrorists kill indiscriminately."

And that's hardly terrorism. That's just out and out guerilla warfare.

I struggle withthis because of my faith, and feelings that life is precious, but I also must deal with the reality of the world. It is a sad state of affairs, but it is reality. I will not sacrifice my liberties and not recieve safety, defense, and protection in its place.

What happened to not "coddling and cajoling" them?

In God we trust. Everyone else, put your hands in the air and don't move.

I'm not advocating an FBI task force to strip search everyone and give them body cavity searches every morning in search of WMDs or anal-dwelling terrorists, but like it or not, you already sacrifice some personal liberties. Nobody is ever completely free to do as they wish, and nobody is ever really alone anymore. This should not come as a surprise to you.

In fact, I'm sure I've dumped out about 30 different keywords into this thread that will pop up on government searches. Hi, guys!

- Greg

[rory_el]

well said DaSharkie!

[DaSharkie]

Greg,

I wasn't exactly sure about what you meant regarding giving up liberties. To an extent you are correct. I wasn't making any disagreements with you, I was just clarifying my points, not challenging you. Unfortunately we get caught in the one dimensionality of the internet - which I hate.

Unfortunately there are so many that cry and say we need to give up rights to defense, a national ID card, blah, blah, blah. I have to fight them and say we don't enforce the friggin' laws that we have now, why add more that will cost a rediculous amount of money. These are the same people that decry Gitmo and say that we need be pleasant to these bastards so we can let them go and they can attack us again.

As for going to Iraq, I'll go with you. One scumbag at a time. I just need a rifle. I have 3 pistols so we are good at close quarters, but we need a little help to reach out and touch someone.

[EMSsquirrel]

No problem, DaSharkie. Glad we think alike. :D

I think Gitmo is stupid, actually. Why the hell are we keeping them? Interrogate them, torture them for more info, then execute them.

I used to be such a freakin' liberal I'm embarrassed. Now look at me. Still, I'm not too keen on this war in Iraq, but mainly because it seems like we're just puttering around. I wish we could resurrect some quality folks, like Sherman, Patton, MacArthur, and Nimitz, and go there and give 'em a proper what for. Ever since we've gotten involved in "police actions," "conflicts," and generally rescuing people from themselves, we haven't given the bad guys the whopping that they deserved. Personally, I hope we reinstate the draft. Then, maybe I'll get a chance to serve, and get over there and put some lead into some terrorists. But, I digress.

The world is changing, unfortunately. I was thinking about that just the other night. EMS is on the front lines, unarmed, unprotected... think of all the hazards. Biological, chemical, radiological. And here, I have no gas mask or chem suit. Bullets and bombings, and I have no ballistic vest. I think there will be a day in our lifetimes when level IIIA vests and helmets are standard equipment on ambulances, and we all carry gas masks and Mark I kits on our belts.

If I continue in this field, I fully anticipate responding to a terrorist incident here before I retire. Hell, I came pretty close to going to the Pentagon. We have incidents (9/11, Madrid, London) that bring terrorism into the forefront of our minds, but then they're of little concern anymore, and we go about our daily business until the next event.

Not to hijack this any more than I already have, but maybe this is why we need a National EMS Administration -- to mandate that we have certain training, and certain equipment. I'm trained to HazMat Ops. I'd love to be trained to HazMat Tech. I think all EMS agencies should have special operations teams, and have people trained in operating around terrorist hazards (BNICE), and equipped to do so. Chem suits. SCBA. Ballistic gear. Mass casualty units.

My county doesn't have an MCI unit. We keep saying, "we'll just call more ambulances," or "we'll call the airport for theirs." How willing are airports to lend out their MCI stuff? So, we have a terrorist attack, and we think that a major international airport isn't going to be another target?

Folks, we're at war. I understand that 99.9% of our job is responding to the little old lady who fell, or the diabetic who didn't take his medicine, or whatever else you get in your regular shift. Heck, that's why I'm doing the job -- for the people, not the catastrophes. But that 0.1% is gonna be a whopper. We were caught with our pants down around our ankles when Hurricane/Tropical Storm/Tropical Depression/Rainstorm/The Weather System Formerly Known as Isabel came through. We bungled it so bad, managed to save our hides by the grace of God, then we went around and patted ourselves on the back and gave everyone medals for it. Meanwhile, there was at least one medic unit that was lost by communications, lost by their station, lost by everyone, in the middle of the storm, for HOURS, and nobody noticed, wondered, or cared. If that were a terrorist attack, or even if it was "just" a violent call, there could have been DEAD PARAMEDICS. And we applauded our efforts? Give me a break.

This job is deadly real. The threat of terrorism is deadly real. The war we're in is deadly real. It's time to cowboy up. :soapbox:

- Greg

[celestialdaisy]

I never thought I'd ever say this, but when I learned of the news yesterday morning I wasn't shocked. Maybe that seems odd, or maybe that is just how freaking wacked out our world is that people aren't shocked by bombings. (There wasn't hours and hours of coverage on US stations...they reverted back to the regular line up.)


Now I question myself as to if I really want to bring children into this world one day...what is normal and where did it go?


I wasn't shocked or surprised either. For us it's become, sad as it may be, just a way of life. We were still young when the bombing started, and Bin Ladin became a superpower on his own (with our help of course). Things have just been coming more and more frequent. It's just another day to us. Yeah, it's a very sad day, and it sucks for all those people, but how shocked can we be when we've basically grown up with it? I questioned myself about bringing children int o the world too. I wasn't sure it was a place I wanted them to live in. But it just happened, and I'm sure one day you'll understand. You can't change the world, you can only control a portion for your kids.