London: Train Blew Up...

Do you 'Flickr'?

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1834937,00.asp?kc=ewnws070805dtx1k0000599

News about Thursday's terrorist attack in London spread across the Web like wildfire with up-to-the-minute details on news and blog sites. A new form of online news outlet seems to have emerged as well—photo sharing sites such as Flickr, which encourage users to share photos and comments in a communal setting.

After four bombs rocked the city, killing at least 37 and wounding more than 700, Flickr members started to pool photos from the event that include pictures of people standing behind blocked streets, armed men boating toward Parliament, and a chilling photo of people evacuating a train via a dark subway tunnel.

A total of about 300 photos have been contributed, and certain photos have been viewed up to 6,000 times.

One Flickr picture of a London-based mosque, once suspected of being an al-Qaida recruitment center, showed the building draped with a sign claiming its "new beginning."

Underneath the photo, someone wrote, "It's neither the fault or sole responsibility of Muslims or Islam, but it's hard not to think, when passing the Finsbury Park mosque, of the extremists who were based here up to a year ago."


This growing collection of photos comes from a specific user-created group that allows any Flickr member to contribute pictures.

Also, users can search specific tags—the most popular tags listed today are "blast," "explosion" and "London"—which pools photos associated with those key words from across the site.

Other sites with similar photo-sharing capabilities have seen the same activity.

Photo communications site Buzznet.com showed a few pictures taken of the aftermath, one including a picture of the double-decker bus that was attacked.

Underneath each photo on this site, people have been posting their experiences and condolences.

One entry underneath a photo said, "Looking at these posts… I wonder… where are my friends?"

Another picture posted on MoblogUK of a man covering his face while exiting a stalled train has been viewed 20,819 times, and more pictures are starting to surface on other similar sites.

Flickr co-founder Caterina Fake said that the site has been experiencing an increase in traffic after the London bombing, but nothing that the company isn't ready to handle.

Ironically, on Wednesday night, she said they moved their data center to a "bigger, better, faster" facility in Dallas as part of its recent acquisition by Yahoo Inc.

Read more here about Yahoo's acquisition of Flickr.

As for the photo sharing based on the London bombings, Fake said they saw similar surges in activity after the December 2004 tsunami and after the Jakarta embassy bombings in September 2004.

"These kinds of surges in activity we plan in advance for," she said. "We know, for instance, that after holidays, people will be loading a lot of photographs; after long weekends people will be uploading a lot of photographs."

After a large global event, though, she says most of the traffic comes from viewers rather than people uploading photo.

"It's just like Pareto's rule—that 20 percent of people will be contributing and 80 percent of the rest will be watching," Fake said.

Photo sharing and citizen journalists have had such an impact that the big news organizations are jumping in on the action as well. The London Times has urged readers to send in their personal photos by posting a link at the top of its site.
 
Bud Plug said:
Some connections need to be re-soldered.

My first post was written to rebut the proposition that terrorism shouldn't be responded to with military force because: a) it propogates a cycle of violence, and b) it isn't possible to completely eliminate it. That post was erroneously interpreted as advocating the eradication of Muslims or Arabs, rather than terrorists. My latter post corrected this misrepresentation. Now, you respond as if my post had been about how you would go about eradicating terrorists, which it wasn't.

The point is nothing is ever that clean and distinguishable when it comes to eradicating terrorism. Revenge isn't the objective but rather lessening the chances of further terrorism, right? If a hornet stings you, do you get revenge by wacking the hornet's nest? That analogy isn't even taking into account the loss of innocent life necessary to exact revenge (or eradicate terrorism if you want to sugar coat it).
 
The Shake said:
Of course we would. Conflict arises from imbalances in power - specific events are mere triggers. Even if the USA was an entirely benign power (which it certainly is not), conflicts would assuredly arise.

I should have said the exploitation of humanity from countries such as the USA in the name of capitalism. Your examples of evil are pretty isolated and distinct whereas I see evil as a continuum of events with many inputs from many sources that feed it. If you want to believe that the USA is less evil than Osama (whom they backed and then fucked over royally) because they are farther away in terms of a time line of events from the manifestation of the evil that is 9/11 then so be it. In reality they are both about controlling resources by whatever means necessary.

The Shake said:
Americans are making mistakes in Iraq, but they are also doing good. It is not a simple matter of the Americans being "less bad" than Hussein.

Again the end doesn't justify the means and intent is everything. Think of the "doing good" as public relations trying to sway world view.

The Shake said:
More to the point, we weren't trying to compare the American occupation with the Hussein dictatorship, we were comparing the terrorist attacks on 9/11 to the US invasion of Iraq. The "chasing away" scenario is spurious.

Again you can't view evil and its manifestations as seperate events where there is a beginning. The specific event of 9/11 just didn't happen.

The Shake said:
Means are not the same as motives or morals. If someone saves me, I don't care if they did it because they think they expect a big reward. I'm just happy to have been saved.

What's your point? It seems to me you are just trying to confuse the issue of the ends not justifying the means. Just because there is an end that can in some way be seen as positive (or a positive spin-off as per your example) doesn't mean the means were justified. Why are you trying to rationalize away from that clear moral observation?
 
I feel like we've been here before ...

Sup Shakey
The Shake said:
If someone saves me, I don't care if they did it because they think they expect a big reward. I'm just happy to have been saved.
I'm a little [more] slow these days, but if we are talking about the outcome being a defining factor, then an innocent civilian killed "intentionally", or as a highly probable, but unfortunate consequence of "war", is still a dead civilian, no ?

I do make a distinction between invading Iraq and an attack like "9/11", but I still believe both lie within the spectrum of so called "evil". Whether intentional, inadvertantly or even oblivious to the consequences people can [and do] contribute to the "axis of evil". Just by accepting/supporting an action aren't we to some degree a part of it, even though our actual intention within our frame of awareness may not in itself be evil ... etc etc ...

... as the war machine keeps turning.
 
Stop the hatred, peace will follow, killing will ceased

Religions imo is suppose to be wise teaching & faith for us to do good and be good. Regardless of skin colour, cultural backup or upbringing.

But over the ages, Extremists' twisted interpretation of religion and lead others to commit crimes of evil.

The answer is not more killing, as it breds a new generation of killers.

I have no problem fighting when there are just cause.

It's time for us to open our hearts, understand our differences. Truely hunt down, arrest and punish those responsible and not turn this into WW3. As hate breeds hate...

It will take time, perhap generations, like U.K. & IRA, South Africa, USSR, and many, many others.
 
solitaria said:
The world isn't black and white but evil is that simple. It exists on both sides and plays back and forth. Do you honestly believe we would have situations like Iraq and 9/11 if it wasn't for the USA exploiting resources and humanity at all costs (by propping up dictatorships that you would call "evil") like they do in the name of capitalism?



?

wow....such oversimplification.......and from someone so intelligent.......who would have thought?
 
train said:
wow....such oversimplification.......and from someone so intelligent.......who would have thought?

I only find it vaguely amusing how you employ sarcasm and nitpicking to mask a general lack of awareness and perception of the world that surrounds you.

To give you an example of what I mean look at Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Yes Saddam Hussein is a really, really, really evil guy but much of his evil was made possible by the USA. When he gassed the Kurds he did it with the chemical agents the United States sold him. The United States sold him the chemical agents so that he could control the surrounding populations and therefore the OIL resources in Iraq. In Oil rich regions the USA can't afford to have power vacuums in the area because the success and failure of their economy is dependent on how steady the supply of oil is at any given time. We owe our lifestyle to the oppression of those countries and the brutish dictatorships that the USA creates and destroys by any means necessary in order to control oil.

The USA doesn't really have a problem with Saddam's "evil" or the fact that he would gas people that threaten his regime in order to keep a power hand. In fact they encourage it and give him the resources to be able to accomplish that end behind the scenes. The US only has a problem when their puppet dictatorships start getting uppity and fail to do as they are told (such that their actions start affecting OIL prices). The USA can control Saddam as long as he doesn't get his hands on nukes. That is a danger to their way of life since it would go a long way in balancing a power disadvantage Iraq has to the USA which can't be conceded and must be preserved at all costs no matter what the expense is to Middle Eastern lives. So basically the Iraq war was seizing back control from a dictator who was getting increasing difficult to manage by making up a bunch of shit about how Saddam is tied to 9/11, or how Saddam is part of the axis of evil, or how they actually care about Iraqis, or whatever other hypocritical lie they needed to use in order to manipulate their own population into thinking they have moral authority in attacking another country.

So really, is the US government any less evil for selling chemical weapons to the dictatorships they sponsor and who end up using them? The answer is of course no, and now they and others such as Britain are feeling the payback of the oppressed through acts of terrorism. Payback is a bitch as they say.
 
Just got to read this entire thread right now since my last entry. I'm glad I did. Now I know I have been such an idiot all this time. There is no terrorist in Canada. What's wrong with me? That guy who got caught on his way to bomb LAX was just propaganda... the government just made him up. Yah and there was nobody involved in 9/11 that previously resided in or visited Canada. There are no relatives of Osama or friends of his or supporters of his here in Canada. There really is nobody here that came from another country became a Canadian citizen then return to there old country to be trained in terrorist training camps. There are no fundraising activities going on in support of any kind of terrorist or extremist groups anywhere. The 1.5 years I spent selling and installing satellite dishes that were capable of catching Arabic/Middle Eastern TV in Ottawa/Hull and Montreal was just a dream. It never happened. And all those guys I drove around (when I was a driver for 2.5 years for dancers and escorts) who were ‘agency owners’ who talked and acted like the girls who worked for them were ‘property’ I. E. SLAVES. That never really happened. Just a big fantasy of mine. Yes stupid me… how could I have been so dumb.

P.S. Oh… And there are no homeless people in North York.
 
solitaria said:
You need meds, BADLY. A few bombs go off in London and you panic and think it is WW3. Get a grip.


Yah I know what you mean.

It was only 2 airplanes that hit the World Trade Centre.

Come on everybody get a grip.
 
Sadly

:(
Uzo said:
I am at Kings Cross Stn this morning and hear a thundering sound...next thing its chaos and everyone has to leave the stations and some alarms start going off...

No underground service going anywhere, no busses in Central London...chaos.

My T-Mobile UK cell is jammed w/network traffic i guess and so is the vodafone...its like 9/11 all over
Uzo, glad to hear you are ok. Sad for the innocent victims and the dead.

Knapsack bombing was running thru my mind as I was in the Tube short time ago. I tend to have run-ins with pre & post-disasters, so worst case sceniro is often on my mind. Or hang out with the Emerg guys don't help either.

The sad truth - IRA prep over the years to a degree, harder to get heavy explosives into U.K., given Scottland Yard survillence. IRA experience helped fast response of the U.K. personnel, avoid more deaths as it could've been much much worst, I am afraid.

London is safe for now. Unfortunately, many more vulerable targets around the world, I'm afraid.
 
Last edited: