Montgomery Blair High School's Online Student Newspaper
Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:24 am
Latest:
Tags: print, Roundup
July 8, 2005

Terrorists strike London

by Grace Harter, Page Editor
This is not original reporting. All information has been compiled from The Washington Post articles "Attacks bear earmarks of evolving al Qaeda" and "Death toll from London blast rises" and The New York Times article "London toll is raised above 50; Police vow broad investigation". Silver Chips Online posts these news summaries to provide readers with a forum for discussion.

Bombs exploded at four different points in London, England during the morning rush hour on July 7. At least 50 people were killed in the explosions and 700 were injured, according to The Washington Post.

Explosives were placed on three separate subway trains and one double-decker bus, reported The New York Times. The lead suspect in the case is al Qaeda because of the carefully planned timing of the four explosions and targets which would cause maximum disruption and devastation in the lives of British citizens.

British investigators believed they could safely rule out the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as the assailant. The IRA usually gives advanced warning of its attacks. However, police received no warning prior to the explosions, which is generally a characteristic of al Qaeda, according to The Post.

On an internet posting, an organization called the Secret Group, part of al Qaeda's jihad, took responsibility for the attacks and said they were to punish Britain for getting involved with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reported The New York Times. However, this claim has not yet been confirmed by investigators.

British police have begun a massive investigation of the three subway cars and the bus by collecting pieces of the explosives at every attacked site and going through the videotapes from security cameras around London, reported The Post.



Share on Tumblr

Discuss this Article

Silver Chips Online invites you to share your thoughts about this article. Please use this forum to further discussion of the story topic and refrain from personal attacks and offensive language. SCO reserves the right to deny any comment. No comments that include hyperlinks will be posted. If you have a question for us, please include your email address or use this form.
 

  • Dumb Democrats= (View Email) on July 8, 2005 at 4:54 PM
    If we don't fight the war on terror, these things would continue to happen.
  • Dumb Republicans= on July 9, 2005 at 12:13 AM
    If we did't fight this "war on terror", these thing would NEVER have happend.
  • Jeff Lautenberger (View Email) on July 9, 2005 at 12:33 PM
    DR-the reason we are fighting the war on terror is in retaliation to things like this. they would have happened anyway, and there is only one way to try and curb further attacks in the future, and that is by continuing the war.
  • concerned on July 9, 2005 at 3:21 PM
    Personally, I think that the last thing that needs to be happening during a crisis like this, is fighting over someone's political preference. Instead we should be mourning the unnessesary deaths of people in a country that is very closely tied to the United States. It's a tragic happening that should not be made into an excuse to fight about dumb political opinions.
  • Andrew Tourtellot '04 on July 9, 2005 at 9:03 PM
    concerned is correct, although I would be mourning this if it happened to ANYone, not just britain. to take a sick terrorist attack like this and use it as an excuse to call democrats dumb is moronic. In fact, it doesn't even make sense; democrats in general are not opposed to finding and defeating terrorists, and many if not most still support our efforts in Afghanistan and against the Taliban and al Qaeda. It's the war in Iraq that's a decidedly different issue.

    At the same time it's just as silly to blame the attacks ON the war on terror. The "war on terror" was a policy enacted in DIRECT RESPONSE to the 9/11 attacks; to say that "these things" would never have happened completely ignores the fact that "these things" already DID happen in 2001.

    How about we keep debating the things we actually disagree on, and lay off the bashing about things we dont, like the need to get whoever is responsible for the attacks.
  • Dumb Democrats= (View Email) on July 9, 2005 at 9:57 PM
    Dumb Republicans, so, you are saying that 9/11 would not have happened if we didn't fight the war on terror? Let me remind you on something. 9/11 happened before the war on terror.

    concerned, you are right, but our goal is to stop what happened in London and what happenned today in Birmingham. The only way to do this is to kill the problem at its roots. and most of its roots is in the place where the war on terror is happening in.
  • Jay Asbell on July 11, 2005 at 4:07 PM
    oh my god, terrorists struck London?!?! Why arnt any of the other major news outlets reporting this the day that it happened?
  • Jeff Lautenberger (View Email) on July 11, 2005 at 6:35 PM
    jay-um, you're kidding, right? if you are, not funny at all. if you aren't, get out of the hole you're in.
  • really annoyed (View Email) on July 12, 2005 at 7:44 PM
    This unoriginal reporting is kind of meaningless to me, and I am getting really tired of seeing journalism that is nearly directly copied from other news sources.

    It would be great if you could get discussion forums set up for major international events such as this, but don't waste your time copying other articles. That is just pointless.
  • Jeff Lautenberger (View Email) on July 12, 2005 at 9:27 PM
    to really annoyed-the purpose of the articles isn't to have exclusive coverage of international events but to impose a forum relevant to blair students. instead of having just a forum as you suggested, facts are presented so people can be informed when commenting. also, by incorporating elements from many different sources, more information is presented than say someone who just reads the Post.
  • Ersatz Pundit (View Email) on July 12, 2005 at 11:57 PM
    You shouldn't expect to get that kind of news reporting from SCO anyways. They do not have the kind of connections large scale newspapers like the washington post can. No matter how good their writing is, the articles are written by high school students. They can't be paid to go across the seas to get you the kind of information that the Washington Post can. But, they still can relay information from publications such as the Washington Post to their readers, some of who may not keep track of large newspapers. And that is their job and duty to give information to their readers.
  • Jay Asbell on July 14, 2005 at 1:21 PM
    actually i was being very sarcastic, because i very much agree with "really annoyed"
  • i hate ignorance on July 20, 2005 at 10:03 PM
    to dumb democrats: don't comment unless u know wut u r talking about. many ppl studying the European attacks believe they were in response to U.S. and U.S. ally actions such as prison abuse, the war in Iraq, and general atrocities committed against arab-looking ppl. Pick up a newspaper and read! Our actions are triggering the hatred.
  • Pekkle Is A Duck on July 30, 2005 at 11:39 AM
    Then why would they attack Britain instead of the US?
  • Oh, the irony on August 6, 2005 at 9:51 PM
    I think it is you who are ignorant, "I hate ignorance." It's naive to think that the only reason terrorists attack is participation in the war in Iraq. It's merely an excuse. Our actions are triggering the hatred? No, our actions are making an already festering hatred more excusable in the eyes of others.

    To Pekkle is A Duck, before the 7/7 attacks, Britain was a haven for Muslim extremists...it was a lot easier for them to plan attacks like this. Now, not so much.
Jump to first comment