Talk:Response to the 2005 London bombings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Response to the 2005 London bombings article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

	This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

To-do list for Response to the 2005 London bombings:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Turn the lists in sections like security and community responses into prose. Copy quotes to Wikiquotes, possibly cut some of the less notable quotes from this page. Add full speeches to Wikisource:7 July 2005 London bombings. Mention media response, e.g. The Independent blamed this on the Iraq War, The Guardian said it would have happened anyway, The Sun (I think it was Trevor Kavanagh) ran an anti-muslim editorial and Fox News were criticised for saying things like "This works in our favor" and "blow up paris, who cares?" [1] Convert external links to use {{ref}} and {{note}} Y Done --DWRtalk 02:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 anti war opinion 2 TV Coverage 3 copyright 4 Hamas condemning attacks on civilians? 5 Ken Livingstone 6 Alphabetised countries 7 Moved info 8 Reverted deletion of quotation section 9 VFD debate link

[edit] anti war opinion

It seems to me that given the massive popularity of anti war opinion in GB, we need a couple of paragrpahs on the repsonse of the anti war organizations. The link is clear - the war in Iraq is claimed to be a war against terror...Johncmullen1960 09:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV Coverage

Just updated the TV response section with a little more detail (27th May, 2006)

[edit] copyright

I don't think there is any copyright for public statement of politicans, does somebody does anything about it ?--Revas 8 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)

Of course not. --ThomasK July 8, 2005 09:24 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas condemning attacks on civilians?

Honestly, is this some kind of joke? They are regarded as a terrorist organization and attack civilians all the time.

it is sourced, although it does come across as rather curious. Kfort 7 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

do you seriously believe ANYTHING that the animals of hamas have to say? Their insincerity is a reflection of the wider Islamic world's hypocricy and cowardice. They will 'condemn' in words only. If the 1.3 billion muslims actually had a shred of decency they would have turned in the extremists long ago. They do not do this. Their silence is an indication of the fact that they support the terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Since all Israelis are conscripted and required to serve in Israeli's armed forces, Hamas claims that there are no adult Israeli civilians. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} July 7, 2005 17:15 (UTC)

It is hypocritical and the conscription argument is quite specious considering that Hamas often targets locations in which it is certain there will be children present. i.e. Jerusalem Bus 2, Sbarro, 2003 Haifa Bus Bombing, etc... etc... Thankfully these coordinated London attacks did not target such locations.

"Hamas spokesman Moussa Abu Marzouk condemned the bombings, saying "Targeting civilians in their transport means and lives is denounced and rejected."

It must be some kind of sick joke. It was Hamas who devolped the method of targeting mass transit systems as early as 1994. In 1996 this terrorist group attacked serveral buses in Tel Aviv and in the Al-Aqsa Intifada they attacked even more buses with suicide bombers. Jerusalem bus 20 massacre, Meggido bus attack, Meiron bus attack, Haifa line 37 bus attack and Jerusalem bus 2 massacre to name the least. I think putting Hamas statement here defiles and desecrates the memory of those who were murdered in the vicious terrorist attacks in Britain and Israel. My condolences to the families of the victims. MathKnight 7 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)

Hamas' argument here is a load of bullshit. Yes, public transportation is more prevalent in Israel than in the US and the demographics are different, but you have to ask yourself, who uses public transportation? Teenagers, the elderly, people who cannot drive because of a disability or cannot own a car, tourists, etc. How many of these people can be reasonably considered combatants? This is the equivalent of Al Qaeda claiming that the 9/11 attacks were a legitimate act of war because military personnel and reservists were among the dead. Further, Hamas no longer represent the Palestinian people, now that they have elected a leader who opposes the violence. How can Hamas claim that their actions are a legitimate act of war rather than terrorism when the Palestinians have overwhelmingly voted in a leader with a completely different agenda. I may be preaching to the choir here, but it really boils my blood when I see editors use this justification on pages related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to prevent suicide bombings from being labeled as terrorist attacks. I was quite pleased that the front page labeled these attacks what they were - acts of terror.

Having said that I don't necessarily support removing the quote as I think that it is an important piece of the story. However, more explanation is needed. GabrielF 8 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Livingstone

Can we have a bigger quote from Ken Livingstone, rather than two words and a link to full text? He's London's Mayor and gave arguably the strongest worded response. --Frankie Roberto 8 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetised countries

Why did someone feel the need to de-alphabetise all of the countries?

As an aside, the Dutch Prime Minister should be alphabetised under "Netherlands".--Madison Gray 8 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)

[edit] Moved info

I've moved some of the Security alert and Media response info here from the main page. I left some dupes, sorry about that. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted deletion of quotation section

I have reverted the change by User:Ed g2s under the comment (moving quotation section to wikiquote) which resulted in the deletion of this sections. I've done this for three reasons:

• The deletion is effectively subverting the discussion on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Response to the 2005 London bombings, a discussion which arguably has reached a consensus not to delete. Whatever the outcome, we shouldn't subvert it by deleting large chunks of the article in this way.

• The 'move' is only half done. The article on wikiquote (which I have left unchanged) has large numbers of redlinks, which need fixing up to the wikipedia articles they formerly pointed at.

• The information is encyclopedic, and should be easily visible on wikipedia. If we can do this by sharing in from wikiquote, in much the way we share images in from commons, then fine. But a link buried halfway down the right hand side of the page just isn't good enough. If we have to, we must put up with duplication.

-- Chris j wood 16:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VFD debate link

This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)