Explosions on the London Underground

Status
Not open for further replies.
POLICE ISSUE TRAVEL ADVICE

Police have urged Londoners to carefully plan their journeys home after the bomb attacks in the capital.

Much of the public transport network is paralysed with the Tube network - which serves 3m people daily - not expected to be open again until Friday morning at the earliest.


Areas of the centre of the city remain closed to traffic to allow ease of access for the emergency services although mainline train services wre slowly returning to normal.

Many companies sent their staff home early and will remained closed on Friday due to the expected strain on public transport.

Andy Trotter, of the British Transport Police, said: "The transport infrastructure is facing challenging times.

"Overground stations King's Cross and Liverpool Street remain closed." He added Victoria is expected to open later on Thursday following a further bomb scare.

"We, along with the various agencies, are doing our very best to open up the system.

"Londoners should think about their journeys home, check if their services are still available and then try and make their way home.

"Try not to all leave at the same time - we do not want a rush."

One eyewitness had earlier described a "sea of people" making their way out of central London by foot.

A riverboat services on the Thames will be free to use for the rest of Thursday.

Charles Clarke, home secretary, said: "People should avoid making any unnecessary journeys into the centre of London."

All UK airports were running as normal although flights to Israel could experience delays due to extra security measures.

Heathrow Airport also warned passengers could experience delays later as an effect of the public transport shutdown in London.

A British Airways' spokeswoman said: "With the Underground suspended, passengers and staff will face difficulty getting to the airport and our flights may well be delayed."

The Gatwick Express, which runs out of London's Victoria station, is working normally, he added.
 
Why is everyone making such a big deal about this? When you go to war, you also invite acts of war to your homeland. England went to war in Iraq, killed some people there, and therefore, it invited people to go to its place. I am not going to feel bad for the people that supported the war. I feel bad for the people that died that were against the war. Those people didn't ask to die, the people that supported the war, did.

Too bad Blair didn't die...he's the one who started all this. Notice that you'll never see the president/prime minister of a country dying as a result of an attack. They're extremely comfortable because they're always surrounded by guards and everything.

What pisses me off is the group of people that cry when a fellow Brit, American, or some other people die. They won't cry when a person from another nationality dies, but they will cry for the people from their country, as if their lives are worth any more than anyone else.

What's the deal with the British throwing their hands in the air when the USA lost over a thousand people and Iraq lost how many? England should be saying "Ah, we're so lucky." Damn, they're lucky those people didn't pull an Escobar on them.
 
H.E. Pennypacker said:
Why is everyone making such a big deal about this? When you go to war, you also invite acts of war to your homeland. England went to war in Iraq, killed some people there, and therefore, it invited people to go to its place. I am not going to feel bad for the people that supported the war. I feel bad for the people that died that were against the war. Those people didn't ask to die, the people that supported the war, did.

Too bad Blair didn't die...he's the one who started all this. Notice that you'll never see the president/prime minister of a country dying as a result of an attack. They're extremely comfortable because they're always surrounded by guards and everything.

What pisses me off is the group of people that cry when a fellow Brit, American, or some other people die. They won't cry when a person from another nationality dies, but they will cry for the people from their country, as if their lives are worth any more than anyone else.

What's the deal with the British throwing their hands in the air when the USA lost over a thousand people and Iraq lost how many? England should be saying "Ah, we're so lucky." Damn, they're lucky those people didn't pull an Escobar on them.

you are a proper faggot... i mean, really... you think that everyone that got killed today was for the war??? so that means they should of died... a life is a life, just because the american tragedy was over a 1000 and this is less than a hundred makes no difference to it still being human lives being taken by fuckin terrorists...
 
Pittsey said:
So we shouldn't show compassion for the dead? We should just say fuck it, it happens all the time in Africa and Iraq.

Your comments are almost as dumb as Lee Ryan's after 9/11. "Who gives a fuck, what about the Elephants and Whales. Hundreds of them are killed every day".

No, that's not what I meant at all. If you got that from my reply then you must read again.
 
Outla Spirit said:
you are a proper faggot... i mean, really... you think that everyone that got killed today was for the war??? so that means they should of died... a life is a life, just because the american tragedy was over a 1000 and this is less than a hundred makes no difference to it still being human lives being taken by fuckin terrorists...

He clearly stated if they were against the war he feels sorry for them. :rolleyes:
 
H.E. Pennypacker said:
Why is everyone making such a big deal about this? When you go to war, you also invite acts of war to your homeland. England went to war in Iraq, killed some people there, and therefore, it invited people to go to its place. I am not going to feel bad for the people that supported the war. I feel bad for the people that died that were against the war. Those people didn't ask to die, the people that supported the war, did.

Too bad Blair didn't die...he's the one who started all this. Notice that you'll never see the president/prime minister of a country dying as a result of an attack. They're extremely comfortable because they're always surrounded by guards and everything.

What pisses me off is the group of people that cry when a fellow Brit, American, or some other people die. They won't cry when a person from another nationality dies, but they will cry for the people from their country, as if their lives are worth any more than anyone else.

What's the deal with the British throwing their hands in the air when the USA lost over a thousand people and Iraq lost how many? England should be saying "Ah, we're so lucky." Damn, they're lucky those people didn't pull an Escobar on them.

It wasn't our chocie to go to war, it was never voted on, it was blair who supported bush in the war not us!

I didn't support the war, but saying the people who supported the war asked to die? thats just silly

edit: some one just explained what you meant by your statement, sorry!!
 
Outla Spirit said:
you are a proper faggot... i mean, really... you think that everyone that got killed today was for the war??? so that means they should of died... a life is a life, just because the american tragedy was over a 1000 and this is less than a hundred makes no difference to it still being human lives being taken by fuckin terrorists...


He is not saying that those who died today was for the war, read deeper in. He is saying that most was for a war. And I'll say it as him; War invites people. That's how it is, unfortunate for those that were against the war. If the terrorists had missiles that could seek people that were for the war....
 
Being against the war or for the war has nothing to do with it. These were civilians, in no war, Iraq or otherwise is it acceptable for civilans to be attacked with impunity such as today. These people were not a part of the war in any sense and therefore had no right to be attacked. Notice how terrorists are never brave enough to attack actual army units, it always has to be civilians or other easy targets. Sickening.
 
you are a proper faggot... i mean, really... you think that everyone that got killed today was for the war??? so that means they

No, read the post again. Read it again. I said if a person was for the war, they were liable. If a person was against the war, they died as innocents, because they didn't create any liability.

so that means they should of died

It means that it would have been fair to murder them, because by supporting the war, they participated in the war. I believe its fair for the other group of people to attack the British that supported the war. I am not saying it was the right thing to do. I am saying it was fair. For example, if Joe punches Bob in the face, its fair for Bob to punch him back.

a life is a life,

In that case, why don't you cry when the people of Colombia are killed...or the people of Southern Africa...or the people of Chechnya...or the people of ash-Shaam (Iraaq) ...or anyone else? Seems like you only cry for the people that were born in your country.
 
damn... fuck saddam hussein, bin laden... n the rest of em... they the motherfuckas dat deserve 2 die right?

i mean, innocents get killed in iraq, yea... shits bad, but when its ya own country... you kno, im not far from london... shit seems more real and its a fucked up situation...

you see places you been, blown 2 shit and it makes ya realise... what bout when the russian school was taken oevr and kids was bein shot and shit... they different nationality right? and i felt for them... so its a fucked up world, now fucked up things gona happen
 
Zero Cool said:
Being against the war or for the war has nothing to do with it. These were civilians, in no war, Iraq or otherwise is it acceptable for civilans to be attacked with impunity such as today. These people were not a part of the war in any sense and therefore had no right to be attacked. Notice how terrorists are never brave enough to attack actual army units, it always has to be civilians or other easy targets. Sickening.

It's the civilians that vote. They set an example. The goverment is chosen by them. Now, I know that alot of ppl were against this war. Howver, it's not like Al Qaeda can send a list to londoners and ask them to sign if they were for or against it, so he knows who to bomb or not. Sorry, but it's just how it is. Also, the place that has been targeted is a large islamic community. But like I said, this is an act to show, unfortunate that innocent ppl has to taste this.
 
RFTP said:
It's the civilians that vote. They set an example. The goverment is chosen by them. Now, I know that alot of ppl were against this war. Howver, it's not like Al Qaeda can send a list to londoners and ask them to sign if they were for or against it, so he knows who to bomb or not. Sorry, but it's just how it is. Also, the place that has been targeted is a large islamic community. But like I said, this is an act to show, unfortunate that innocent ppl has to taste this.

Listen, it's simply NOT acceptable to attack civilians. It's a cowardly act and one totally against what these individuals are purportedly fighting for. Look up the rules of war, it couldn't be more clearly stated. How about the Coalition go around and massacre Afghani's or Iraqi's at random, who knows maybe they support Al-Qaeda and so it's warranted. What an idiotic line of reasoning.


:rolleyes:
 
Zero Cool said:
Listen, it's simply NOT acceptable to attack civilians. It's a cowardly act and one totally against what these individuals are purportedly fighting for. Look up the rules of war, it couldn't be more clearly stated. How about the Coalition go around and massacre Afghani's or Iraqi's at random, who knows maybe they support Al-Qaeda and so it's warranted. What an idiotic line of reasoning.


:rolleyes:

agree wit zero
 
Zero Cool said:
Listen, it's simply NOT acceptable to attack civilians. It's a cowardly act and one totally against what these individuals are purportedly fighting for. Look up the rules of war, it couldn't be more clearly stated. How about the Coalition go around and massacre Afghani's or Iraqi's at random, who knows maybe they support Al-Qaeda and so it's warranted. What an idiotic line of reasoning.


:rolleyes:

Are you kiddin me? Have you been in this world for more then a decade? There are NO RULES in war. If anything, the 90's war should tell you that.
 
RFTP said:
Are you kiddin me? Have you been in this world for more then a decade? There are NO RULES in war. If anything, the 90's war should tell you that.

Oh my God, I won't even dignify such an idiotic assumption with a proper response :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Zero Cool said:
Listen, it's simply NOT acceptable to attack civilians. It's a cowardly act and one totally against what these individuals are purportedly fighting for. Look up the rules of war, it couldn't be more clearly stated. How about the Coalition go around and massacre Afghani's or Iraqi's at random, who knows maybe they support Al-Qaeda and so it's warranted. What an idiotic line of reasoning.

:rolleyes:

Your an idiot. Obviously The coalition didn't go around purposely killing civilians, but the fact remains that thousands of civilians died. Should we just erase that from our memories and pretend that it never happened. The Iraqi civilians died over an UNJUST War, they did'nt deserve to die. Now stop trying to defend Bush and Blair, while calling the terrorists evil murderers. Both sides are wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Donate

Back in the day, we used to recieve donations sent as cash in fake birthday cards! Those were the days! I still have some of them, actually.

Now we have crypto.

Ethereum/EVM: 0x9c70214f34ea949095308dca827380295b201e80

Bitcoin: bc1qa5twnqsqm8jxrcxm2z9w6gts7syha8gasqacww

Solana: 8xePHrFwsduS7xU4XNjp2FRArTD7RFzmCQsjBaetE2y8

Members online

No members online now.