Clear Full Forecast

London Shows Stiff Upper Lip, Welcomes Tourists in the Wake of Attacks

By

Saturday, July 09, 2005 04:00 AM


"London Bridge"
Although still in shock  after four horrific terrorist bombs this past week, London refuses to  hide the welcome mat. 

When traveling anywhere whether it is London or any European city you should always make sure that someone at home has your travel itinerary and knows where and how to contact you in case of an emergency. Leave a copy of your passport and proof of citizenship with your family or friends. You will need a passport to go to England, you should make a photocopy of your passport identification page and keep it with you and it is advisable to have travel insurance also. You should always keep your passport and your money separate.

It is wise when traveling in any foreign country to make sure that people know you are from Canada. It will make your traveling easier.

Travellers can expect increased police presence and security at major airports and throughout transportation networks in Western Europe and elsewhere. Canadians should exercise caution and maintain a high level of personal security awareness at all times and in all places. Also if you notice any package left unattended let security know about. London subways are generally very clean so if you see anything unusual report it.

London is returning back to normal and welcoming all visitors to their city. 

Travelling around London is still best done by bus or train. However there will be no service on the following lines until further notice.

Piccadilly line – no service between Hyde Park Corner and Arnos Grove. A special bus service will operate between Arnos Grove and Finchley Central to connect with Northernline services. Circle and Hammersmith & City line there is no service at all. Metropolitan line there is no service between Baker St and Aldgate. District line no service between High Street Kensington and Edgware Road. Also King’s Cross St Pancras station is closed.

Remember always take precaution when traveling in a foreign city.

Keep this number handy, you never know when you may need it. For emergency assistance after hours, Canadians may also make a toll-free call to the Department in Ottawa at 00 800 2326-6831.

Looking for further information go to following website:
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/main/foreign/fordest/foreign_view_client-en.asp 

- Jami Wiitso
  Japatedon Travel & Cruises

Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Nobody Attacks Civilization

By Charley Reese
7-9-5

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush went into their standard routine after the London bombings. This was an attack against civilization and all civilized nations, they said.

That's bosh and hokum, and it does a disservice to the people. The first step always in solving any problem is to define the problem correctly. There are no terrorists anywhere in the world whose goal is the destruction of civilization, Western or otherwise.

The terrorist attacks against the U.S., Great Britain and Spain are motivated exclusively by Western policies toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the presence of Western military forces in Islamic countries. Al-Qaeda, the ideological source of these attacks, has always been crystal-clear and specific about its reasons for declaring war against the United States.

You can't win a war unless you know who your enemy is, know why he is your enemy and know what his objectives are. Only then can you properly direct your military and political forces to combat him successfully.

Unfortunately, very early on, President Bush decided to create a mythical enemy of vague and ambiguous proportions and irrational motives. This was done to give carte blanche to the government to pursue policies that really had nothing to do with fighting al-Qaeda - e.g., invading Iraq, putting North Korea and Iran in the "axis of evil" and including groups on the enemies list that were in fact not our enemies.

The confusion this causes was illustrated by television coverage of the London attacks. Several commentators lumped together the terrorist attacks against public transport in Moscow, Madrid and London. However, the Moscow attack had nothing to do with the attacks in Madrid and London, or with us. Moscow is fighting Chechen rebels who want independence for Chechnya. Chechen attacks against Russia, like Palestinian attacks against Israel, are not directed at us. They are motivated by specific political objectives. Chechens and Palestinians have no desire to destroy civilization; they simply wish to take their place in the family of nations as independent countries.

You can't have a war against terrorism because, as many people have pointed out, terrorism is a tactic employed by people who have no real military power. It is not an entity. There is no worldwide terrorist organization.

Terrorist tactics work because we live in a wired world. Ten or 12 people can set off a few bombs in London, and the world turns its electronic eyes on the story and chats, discusses and shows video clips until some other event distracts it. The media attention and the inflated rhetoric of politicians magnify the terrorist act far beyond its actual import.

These attacks - pinpricks, really, in terms of any damage they do to national power - cannot be completely stopped. A few malcontents inspired by someone's rhetoric can get together and set off a bomb or two or shoot some people. Terrorists should be considered criminals, and their acts as ordinary crimes. Physically dealing with terrorists is properly ordinary police work. There is no war involved.

What the United States should be doing, instead of invading and occupying countries, is re-examining its foreign policy vis-à-vis the Islamic world. There is no natural conflict between the West and Islam. The followers and true believers of Osama bin Laden are a tiny minority. The best way to cut the ground out from under him is to develop and pursue policies that treat all of the Islamic countries with fairness and respect.

We don't do that at the present time. Because of the power of the Israeli lobby to skew our policy to benefit Israel, our Middle East policies are riddled with double and triple standards and reek of hypocrisy. Because of that, we are the best recruiter Osama bin Laden has.

But in the meantime, remember that terrorist attacks are primarily media events. You still have more to fear from the flu or accidents than you do from terrorists.

c. 2005 King Features Syndicate
AL QAEDA WEBSITE TRACKS BACK TO ... MARYLAND???
Submitted by two readers.

Last night on CNN I heard them making a connection between the London
bombings and an “Islamic terrorist” website called alneda.com. I tried to
view the website but it’s been taken offline. I did find the following three
year old reference to alneda.com on CNN:

From: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/06/24/binladen.video/

"These statements and others from al Qaeda have been appearing from time to
time on a Web site called www.alneda.com.

"In recent months, the site, which experts suspect is closely linked to al
Qaeda, also has posted manifestos signed "al Qaeda jihad" in which it says
bin Laden is alive and well and preparing future attacks against the United
States.

----------

Interesting "link" to al-Qaeda, as revealed by whois data for alneda.com:

----------

[WHOIS ALNEDA.COM]

Registration Service Provided By: DIRECTI
Contact: +91.2256797500
Website: http://www.directi.com
Domain Name: ALNEDA.COM

Registrant:
SFP, Inc
Jon David (jondavid@4jon.com)
Po 312
Berlin
Maryland,21811
US
Tel. +011.4107237089

Creation Date: 16-Jul-2002
Expiration Date: 16-Jul-2013

----------

Jon David, a fine Islamic sounding name, no doubt named after a martyr or
prophet or some such. Located in that hotbed of terrorism, Berlin, Maryland
USA.

I ran a traceroute to the web address. I've left off the first ten hops to
obscure the source of my trace, to protect my privacy. But as you can see
the trace ends up at broadwing.net:

----------

traceroute to alneda.com (65.89.91.148), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 11 sl-browing-15-0.sprintlink.net (144.223.246.82) 3.630 ms 3.539 ms 3.682 m
s
12 216.140.8.6 (216.140.8.6) 4.874 ms 4.364 ms 4.431 ms
13 p4-0.c0.wash.broadwing.net (216.140.8.89) 4.361 ms 4.321 ms 4.235 ms 14 p2-0.a0.nwrk.broadwing.net (216.140.9.2) 11.472 ms 11.432 ms 11.875 ms 15 P1-0.a1.dc.nwrk.broadwing.net (216.142.236.61) 11.453 ms !H * 11.596 ms
!H

----------

Broadwing Communications of Austin, TX. Hey, aren't we killing and
incarcerating Iraqis so we don't have to host terrorist websites in der
homeland?

Admin contact info for Broadwing is provided below. Might be fun to ask them
what they're doing hosting terror websites connected with the recent
bombings.

----------

[WHOIS BROADWING.NET]

Registrant:
Broadwing Communications, LLC
1122 Capital of Texas Highway South
Austin, TX 78746
US

Domain Name: BROADWING.NET

Administrative Contact:
Smith, Kyle DNS@BROADWING.COM
Broadwing Communications, LLC
1122 South Capitol of Texas Highway
Austin, TX 78746
US
302.283.2854 302.283.2802 fax: 302.283.2802


----------

Following another line of inquiry, the authoritative name records for
alneda.com are hosted by thewetlandsinc.com, and email for alneda.com is
directed to thewetlandsinc.com's mail server:

----------

; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> @A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET alneda.com ns
;; ANSWER SECTION:
alneda.com. 172800 IN NS ns1.thewetlandsinc.com.
alneda.com. 172800 IN NS ns2.thewetlandsinc.com.

; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> @ns1.thewetlandsinc.com alneda.com ns
;; ANSWER SECTION:
alneda.com. 3600 IN NS ns2.thewetlandsinc.com.
alneda.com. 3600 IN NS ns1.thewetlandsinc.com.

; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> @ns1.thewetlandsinc.com alneda.com a
;; ANSWER SECTION:
alneda.com. 3600 IN A 65.89.91.148

; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> @ns1.thewetlandsinc.com alneda.com mx
;; ANSWER SECTION:
alneda.com. 3600 IN MX 10 mail.thewetlandsinc.com.

----------

Thewetlandsinc.com is registered to a web hosting company in Sarasota, FL:

----------

[WHOIS THEWETLANDSINC.COM]

Registrant:TheWetlands.com, Inc.
PO Box 312
Berlin, MD 21811
US

Domain Name: THEWETLANDSINC.COM

Administrative Contact:
David, Jon jd@THEWETLANDSINC.COM
12507 SUNSET AVE STE 21
OCEAN CITY, MD 21842-9296
US
410-723-7089 fax: 410-723-7085

Record expires on 13-Oct-2011.
Record created on 13-Oct-1999.
Database last updated on 9-Jul-2005 12:01:33 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS2.THEWETLANDSINC.COM 216.226.150.171
NS1.THEWETLANDSINC.COM 216.226.150.170

----------

“Abu Musab” Jon David of Maryland again! Note the registrant for
thewetlandsinc.com is TheWetlands.com, Inc.:

----------

[WHOIS THEWETLANDS.COM]

Registrant: TheWetlands.com, Inc.

Unlisted-Whois.com Protection Service
P.O. Box 229
Margaretville, NY 12455
US

Domain Name: THEWETLANDS.COM

Administrative Contact-
Unlisted-Whois.com, LLC Ref# 103974: nzsc2ntuv9was5e@brprivatewhois.com
Unlisted-Whois.com Protection Service
P.O. Box 229
Margaretville, NY 12455
US
Phone- 4107353410
Fax- 014107353433

Record create date: 1998-01-27
Record expires on: 2007-01-26

----------

Thewetlands.com is a Porn site. Kind of a strange place for an Islamic
fundamentalist to choose to host a jihadi website.


Returning to the registry for alneda.com, Jon David’s admin contact info
references an email address at 4jon.com; the admin contact for 4jon.com is
listed as a PO box in NY:

----------

Unlisted-Whois.com Protection Service
P.O. Box 229
Margaretville, NY 12455
US

Domain Name: 4JON.COM

Administrative Contact
Unlisted-Whois.com, LLC Ref# 103966: cb8hpkhy63m3h5@brprivatewhois.com Unlisted-Whois.com Protection Service P.O. Box 229 Margaretville, NY 12455 US Phone 4107353410 Fax 014107353433

----------

According the CNN June 25, 2002 web ariticle (URL listed above):

“The site reappeared in early June and this time CNN traced it to a
Web-hosting company in Texas. As CNN went to air with another story on it
last Monday, alneda.com once again disappeared from the Web.

----------

However, as the above traceroute shows, the DNS for alneda.com still points
web queries to broadwing.net, in Austin, TX.

Interesting how the U.S. corporate medium absolutely fails to point out that
this “terrorist” webiste is hosted in Texas.

Also interesting is CNN’s suggestion is 2002 that alneda.com had “once again
disappeared from the Web”. It appears it’s where it has always been. These
people never hear of investigative journalism? What I want to know is: who
the hell is Jon David, and why is he maintaining a “terrorist” website in
Texas?

Maybe we should notify the Berlin, MD police of the “terrorist” in their
midst. Or der Homeland Security? It also might be fun to contact Broadwing
and the domain name registrars and ask them what they’re doing associating
with terrorists? Weird how Muslim charities have been targeted since 911,
but somehow this “terrorist” alneda.com has managed to reside in Texas for
three years.
I like the article you posted Chadermando. I do not understand why people will not face such realities.

anyway, to respond to your question "who is Jon David?" I am wondering why you did not google his name. You did interesting trace work, but did not go the next step.

This should be an interesting read for you in that case.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/jondavid.php

so lets put it all together ... and we have????
oh ... I forgot to let you know that his e-mail address is hosted on a porn site...... I won't link it here, but assume you can find it ....
So .......

the real question then is, why does CNN not know about the story that Jon David is an alias and that this individual has "hijacked" was was supposedly an Islamic site before he did so and has now locked it as shown near the bottom of this DNS search page.

http://dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=alneda.com

or is "Jon David" a hoakster and this whole story is a spoof??????

will we ever know ???
here is another excellent article from the London Guardian speaking about fundamental changes required to overcome that part of terrorism in the world which is perpetrated by Islamic militants.

http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Jul05/090705cook.html
Owl,

Good questions. I like yours better then the other potential questions that could arise if Jon David is indeed a government linked asset that has ties to the military assult like team that carried out the terror attacks. Some of the potential questions could have some ugly answers.

Time Will Tell

PS I'm not sure I like vigilanties playing director and host to terrorist planning anyways. IMO Jon is a Mossad agent with specific objectives that we are on a need to know basis as far as they are concerned.
Cui bono? Stupidity Versus Logic in the Latest “Terror” Attack
by Anthony Wade
July 7, 2005

(Owl re:paragraph 6 last sentence....)

Wow, al Qaeda must be the stupidest terrorists, no wait, stupidest people period, on this entire planet. Their purported goal is to shake the will of the western powers that have invaded Iraq, and to drive them out, no? Then can someone please explain to me the logic of the London bombings? No seriously, it is time to apply logic to these events. Please do not hand me the nonsense about these people being “killers” who do not apply logic. You do not become the number one terrorist organization without having some logic, no? We are expected to swallow that these people were smart enough to circumvent our billion dollar intelligence and air defense systems with box cutters, but they cannot play coherent cause-effect scenarios out in their mind prior to carrying out terrorist activities? I doubt that very much.

Just this week, it was reported that England had drafted plans to pull out their troops, gone, see you later, victory for al Qaeda, right? So we are to believe then that the orchestrated response to these plans was to blow up a double decker bus, in England. Now, can you guess what the most likely response to such an event would be:

1) Pull the troops out faster
2) Galvanize public support, thus keeping the troops in Iraq

Those of you that selected number one, I will assume you work for the Bush administration. Those of you that selected number two, good job. Now that we have established the enormous stupidity in the England bombings, the next logical front to examine is here in the United States.

Let’s examine the political climate here in this country just prior to this “attack”. Support for the Iraq War was at an all time low. People were unmoved by the President’s speech, dropping his overall approval rating to 43%. The drums of impeachment were growing louder with each passing day, with the revelations that the Downing Street Memos do indeed prove that George Bush committed felonies in lying to Congress and starting war without Congressional approval. Also on our political front was the Valerie Plame story and how it appears there is a good chance that Karl Rove committed treason in outing a covert CIA operative, who just happened to be assigned to uncovering WMD. Considering the closeness of Rove to Bush, if these allegations proved to be true, then how much of a stretch is it to assume Bush had complete foreknowledge of the revenge against Joe Wilson by outing his wife.

Now the corporate media has tried very hard to ignore these stories. We have had coverage of the Michael Jackson trial, and most recently the missing girl in Aruba for months now as Bush’s world unraveled daily. No offense to the Holloway family but the story about Natalie’s events should not be a lead story on any news show, with the possibility of impeachment, treason, and the Iraq War events happening daily. But there was our media, firmly in the pocket of George Bush, pimping the pain of the Holloway family as the most important news story. This aside though, the real stories were finally starting to poke through. Mainstream media received so many complaints about their ignoring potentially Bush-damaging stories, that they finally had to cover them.

Now, from al Qaeda’s perspective one would logically conclude this is a good thing. We were told by the Bushies that a vote for John Kerry was a vote for al Qaeda because they were so afraid of the great warrior, Bush. Considering the plummeting poll numbers for Bush and calls from the grass roots in this country for his political head, one should conclude that al Qaeda would be happy that the news had finally turned its attention to the possibility of getting rid of Bush. Please do not hand me the nonsense about how they do not look at these events. We are led to believe that al Qaeda runs their own website so they can leak stories that help Bush and claim credit for their own terrorist activities so it is obvious they are on the cutting edge of technology and Internet news.

So I ask again, given that the events in the US are in the favor of al Qaeda, and that public opinion for the war had been steadily eroding, I must ask the obvious question. Why in the world would they now carry out another terrorist mission? Are we honestly to believe they did not think about what the ramifications were? If the war was going poorly for them and the world was united against them, then I could understand an attack to break our will, but when things are going well, why in the world would they carry out this attack? It has now been reported that:


“BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said a previously unknown group calling itself the Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe had claimed to be behind the attacks in a statement posted on an Islamist website.


The group's statement said the attacks were revenge for the "massacres" Britain was committing in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the country was now "burning with fear and panic", he added.”
Uh-huh. So, al Qaeda carried out the attacks for the massacres committed by the British troops, which are miniscule in comparison to the US. They further carried out the attacks in complete obliviousness to the news of the imminent British troop pullout. They further carried out these attacks despite the fact that Bush’s poll numbers were in the toilet and heading lower, leading to a possibility of impeachment. They further carried out these attacks even though the media had finally begun to cover the stories that could be potentially damaging to the entire war machine that they are fighting against. Wow, they are some stupid terrorists.


The level of stupidity is equal to when Osama bin Laden released his latest hit video, four days before the Presidential election. Surely he must have realized that would have only aided Bush, yet there he was providing America with a little fear before the election, a move that only could have helped Bush. Today, here is his little outfit, al Qaeda, once again coming to the aide of his alleged arch-nemesis Bush.


Cui bono is a Latin phrase which simply means, “Who benefits?” and it is the question we need to be asking ourselves. What does al Qaeda gain from this attack? The only logical answer can be, NOTHING. It will instill fear in the populace which could lead to a galvanizing of public support for the war they are fighting. It may lead to England changing their plans about pulling out their troops. It will give the US corporate media an excuse to not cover the stories that had been corroding the support for Bush. Instead of the potential impeachment, treason by Karl Rove, and the Downing Street Memos, the corporate media will be hammering the story about the terror attacks in England and how they show the need for this continuous war. I am sorry but when asking cui bono, it is clear that al Qaeda does not benefit from this attack, as it undermines everything they are working toward.


The war machine however, they benefit greatly. Their two main proponents, Bush and Blair get to play on people’s fears and reinvigorate support for their war. This event is only a few hours old, but here are their initial responses:


"They are trying to use the slaughter of innocent people to cow us, to frighten us out of doing the things that we want to do. They "should not and they must not succeed," – Tony Blair.


Really Tony? But your government had already decided to pull the troops out of England, so why would they need to carry out this attack and risk England changing their minds? No Tony, there is clearly no logic behind this attack and they clearly are not trying to frighten a people who have already agreed to pull out their troops, and who only represent less than 5% of the troops to begin with.


Here is what our fearless leader, Bush, had to say today:


“"The war on terror goes on."


Ah yes, every now and again, people who lie for a living slip up and reveal the truth. This statement reveals exactly the purpose of the attacks, and answers the question, cui bono. Faced with plummeting poll numbers and declining public support Bush tried last week to calm the storm by going to the American people with more fantasies connecting 911 to Iraq. The American people did not buy it this time though and his numbers got worse. Then the “Karl Rove is a treasonous traitor” stories started popping up and Bush was faced with the prospect of his war not continuing and his staunchest ally, England announced their plans for pulling troops out just as George was saying what a mistake it would be to make such plans. The morale in the al Qaeda camp must have been at an all time high. Their efforts in the war were finally paying off. Bush was losing his public support and his own country was beginning to speak about removing him from office. His top aide was under investigation for possible treason. England had started to make plans to pull out their troops.


So it is at this time, we are to believe that an organization smart enough to pull off 911, decided to throw away all the progress mentioned above, to frighten a people whose government only has 5% of the current troops in the war on terror, and had just decided to pull those troops out? The word stupidity would not cover this decision. It is unfathomable in its illogic.


I understand this raises things we do not want to consider. Well, consider this. In the early 1960’s your government considered operations that would sacrifice innocent, civilian American lives in order to start a war with Cuba. I will not rehash Operation Northwoods (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/) here except to point out that it is horribly naïve to assume people in power, would not seek to abuse that power for their own ends. If this was true in 1962, it is even truer in 2005.


We see the images of terror on the television and we remember our fear, just like we were supposed to. Our President will use this attack to rebuild all he has lost in support and we cannot allow that to happen. This attack does not change the fact that George Bush started his war 6 months prior to obtaining Congressional approval. It does not change the fact that he knowingly lied to Congress to go to war, fitting his intelligence around his policy. It does not change the fact that Karl Rove apparently may have committed treason against the United States. Don’t let him use this tragic event to sway us from pursuing the truth. Don’t let him.
Cui bono America, Cui bono.
Fair enough, Chadermando, and a seemingly logical argument being presented.

How about trying a different answer to the "cui bono" question from the point of view of Al Qaeda and other Islamic militants and running that through as a scenario?

If the ultimate goal of those militant groups is to unseat the USA and its allies as the primary world power(s), what would be a strategy a David might use to topple a Goliath? Would they be interested in allowing the USA and its allies to withdraw their forces?

Or would they prefer to keep money flowing into war efforts, keep the focus on war efforts rather than rebuilding the economy, and continue promoting the world's dislike of the USA government?
Owl asks,
“If the ultimate goal of those militant groups is to unseat the USA and its allies as the primary world power(s), what would be a strategy a David might use to topple a Goliath?”

IMO the perception of responsibility and ethics would slay most of their great satin problems. Obviously there are extremists with a parochial view that think otherwise.

Owl asks,
“Would they be interested in allowing the USA and its allies to withdraw their forces?”

IMO it depends if they are playing to win or not. If they acted on the first question there would be no need to ask the US to withdraw forces. It is there natural right to have their land free of occupiers if they are responsible for themselves.

Owl asks,
“Or would they prefer to keep money flowing into war efforts, keep the focus on war efforts rather than rebuilding the economy, and continue promoting the world's dislike of the USA government?”

IMO that is highly probable in the short run, but this can be mitigated in a number of ethical ways that would disarm the propaganda of those who want to squander wealth in favor of war promotion. The terrorists states can not ever hope to really threaten our way of life unless through nuclear suit case terrorism. For that reason there should be zero tolerance on nuclear proliferation.

The best solution is to get them all to agree on the legitimacy of a representative democracy. Canada should be a leader in this instead of hiding in our own empire based past. The electoral reform vote in the last election was a prime opportunity to lead by example, which looks to be lost.

Time Will Tell