"Seeing my passengers in such a state really shocked me"
July 7, 2015 4:11 AM   Subscribe

Ten years ago, four suicide bombers carrying rucksacks packed with explosives attacked central London, killing 52 people and injuring hundreds more. It was the worst single terrorist atrocity on UK soil.

Services mark the 10th anniversary of the event, with a minutes silence being held across Britain. Many changes were made to anti-terror planning in the years following, but with fifty attacks allegedly stopped since, the threat isn't going away.

Intimate and candid eye-witness and family accounts bring uncomfortable clarity and startlingly vivid scenes to the mind's eye. Survivors find outlets for what happened to them and those around them, and there are opportunities to hear from different perspectives.
posted by NordyneDefenceDynamics (42 comments total) 14 users marked this as a favorite
 
This BuzzFeed article is, believe it or not, quite excellent too.
posted by NordyneDefenceDynamics at 4:18 AM on July 7, 2015 [5 favorites]






Course it also means we're less than a month away from the tenth anniversary of the police murder of Jean Charles de Menezes.
posted by MartinWisse at 4:27 AM on July 7, 2015 [23 favorites]


Thanks for remembering, the links and reminders that terrorism is not just a reaction to Western (mis)adventures. I just returned to Ireland after visiting friends in Cardiff. I was struck by my friends comments ( she teaches English in a Welsh speaking school ) that she just spent a lunch hour listening to 11 and 12 year old(s) talk of terrorism and their own fears. Though there was very little objective need to fear for themselves a number of them joined the chorus of wanting to move to New Zealand where "people do not get blown up". Thanks Again
posted by rmhsinc at 4:27 AM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


. . . with fifty attacks allegedly stopped since, the threat isn't going away.

As an American, I'd say that all government claims in this area need to be viewed with extreme skepticism. We're deluged with "terrorism alerts" and ginned up plots, courtesy of the FBI, but they never appear to see the actual attacks coming.
posted by ryanshepard at 4:33 AM on July 7, 2015 [13 favorites]


This quote from the uncomfortable clarity link is interesting:

"The people they blamed were quite curious. They blamed the government and foreign policy

Because I remember quite a few people, victims or otherwise, making that very same point at the time even if it didn't get noticed much by the media.

The War on Iraq, like The War Against Terror, was sold to the British public, once it became clear WMDs didn't cut it anymore, as keeping Britain safe: fight terrorists there so they don't come over here. The 7/7 bombings were clear evidence this was not the case, that this foreign policy had failed, that by jumping on the terrorism bandwagon the Blair government had made the UK less safe, not more.
posted by MartinWisse at 4:35 AM on July 7, 2015 [11 favorites]


RIP
posted by GallonOfAlan at 4:47 AM on July 7, 2015 [2 favorites]


Minor nit-pick: the worst terrorist atrocity on British soil was the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, which killed 270 people. Even if we get really pedantic and insist most of them died in the air, it managed to kill 11 more people who were on the ground where the pieces came down.

<flame-bait>
But that doesn't count, because Scotland.
</flame-bait>

(London has the same sort of narcissistic ignore-everywhere-else reality distortion field as New York or LA. That's basically what I'm bitching about here. We now return you to your regular scheduled 7/7 memorial grieving.)
posted by cstross at 4:51 AM on July 7, 2015 [33 favorites]


It was the worst single terrorist atrocity on UK soil.

But hardly the only one. The IRA carried out terrorist attacks on British soil against the British public for 35 years. They even made a few well-orchestrated attempts on government targets, famously assassinating Lord Mountbattan and narrowly missing both Thatcher and Major. It would seem living with the fear of being blown up is as British as Pimms in the summer.
posted by three blind mice at 4:54 AM on July 7, 2015 [3 favorites]


But hardly the only one. The IRA carried out terrorist attacks on British soil against the British public for 35 years.

Also in July 2005: "The IRA has formally ordered an end to its armed campaign and says it will pursue exclusively peaceful means."
posted by effbot at 5:07 AM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


My overriding memory of the country at the time is the good news stories about the Olympic winning bid for 2012 suddenly being cut short. I don't know why that sticks with me. Contrast I guess. Images of Denise Lewis screaming with joy and hugging Seb Coe...
posted by Thing at 5:11 AM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


Time flies. I joined MetaFilter on July 12th 2005, my first post was about de Menezes, though we didn't know his name or innocence at the time.

I was somewhat swept up in the fear and the hysteria in that post, much as we all were, but my God if it doesn't look just awful now. I mean, some of the "breaking news" quotes:

I saw an Asian guy run onto the train hotly pursued by three plain-clothes police officers... False.
A tall Asian man with a beard and a rucksack got on after me... False again.
The next thing I saw was this guy jump over the barriers... Never happened.

They put seven bullets in the head of an innocent Brazilian man at point blank range that day.

I was 18, barely political, about to leave home for University. What happened over the ensuing months - years - had a profound effect on me. I began to understand what was happening to us. I began to wake up to the reality of the situation. That no one really knew what was going on, that we were angry and afraid, ready to lash out. I thought we were better than that; it turns out we were not.

Many of the policies of that war-on-terror era still stand. Operation Kratos, the shoot-to-kill rule, for example. It became normal.

We tell ourselves we shrugged it off; didn't let the terrorists win. Bollocks. GCHQ has the most draconian domestic surveillance programme of almost any nation. Just last month 30 British people died in Tunisia, a direct consequence of our foreign policy over the last ten years. We demonise Muslims, continue to blame them for this attack and others. Continue to demand that 1.3 billion people "apologise" for the actions of a handful of pissed-off sociopaths. The Guardian, today: "I was there on 7/7, and I am a Muslim. Let me tell you about blame..."

Cameron calls a minutes' silence, asks us to spare a thought for the innocent dead, whilst pressing for air strikes in Syria. The carnival of death continues unabated.

The government asks: "Are you not safer now?"

Like a wise man once said: those who will trade liberty for a little security, deserve neither, and will lose both.
posted by Acey at 5:27 AM on July 7, 2015 [26 favorites]


Let's be clear any statement that the US and British lead war in the Mideast made anyplace in Europe or America less safe is speculation--it may be, and is, logical to assume this is the case but it is still speculation based on one's beliefs, biases and writing of near term history. Clearly it destabilized the Mideast and has had profound political, religious, economic ,military and human consequences. On the other hand--who really knows what other events could have/would have triggered a similar if less dramatic destabilization. History, which it is too soon for any of us to write, may have its own interpretation. We all carry the burden of imperfect lives, governments, policies and actions. But the only necessary and sufficient cause of a terrorist act is a terrorist. If you want to find an appropriate, logical and historically accurate bogeyman I suggest we put the focus on religious extremism and righteousness of any persuasion.
posted by rmhsinc at 5:38 AM on July 7, 2015 [2 favorites]


It would seem living with the fear of being blown up is as British as Pimms in the summer.

I lived in London during one of the more intense periods of IRA activity, and had a car bomb and a bus blow up within a mile of my house. Around once a week the roads or tube stations around my flat would be closed because of bomb threats.

But you were still far more likely to be killed or injured by a car or falling off a ladder than blown up by a bomb. Everyone just got on with their lives without the kind of hysterical paranoia that is used to justify actions by our governments that cause the gradual erosion of liberty, democracy and international law and which are ultimately responsible for far more death and misery.
posted by silence at 5:43 AM on July 7, 2015 [11 favorites]


I remember well the terror of that day, and the horrible atrocity committed by those ... well, it may seem "prejudiced" or "bigoted" for me to call them what they are, but I think I should be allowed to say it, even if it might come across as racist: the horrible atrocity committed by those Yorkshiremen.

I'm not saying that the RAF should commence air strikes on Leeds, but surely we should have the debate in Parliament. Although I've got a stag do in Leeds next weekend. But after that - yeah. Debate in Parliament.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 6:03 AM on July 7, 2015 [12 favorites]


Let's be clear any statement that the US and British lead war in the Mideast made anyplace in Europe or America less safe is speculation

If we're going to have a discussion about more than just remembering the trauma of a particularly nasty crime, and paying our respects to its victims, then let's also be clear that even discussing non-state political violence from a safety/risk-management point of view is, among people in Western nations who, say, drive cars and take a wide variety of medications, quite ridiculous, and mention of the "terrorist threat" is almost always propaganda of one sort or another.

Putting on my ridiculous-person hat, I'd suggest that the right question is whether whether military adventures carried out, in part, in the name of safety have meaningfully achieved their aims, rather than merely not having the opposite effect, and more importantly whether it is worth murder, destruction, regional destabilization, and massive expense even to, say, cut a risk by 99%, when the risk is miniscule.

The correct response to non-state political violence is to use ordinary police work to enforce ordinary laws against perpetrators of violent acts. Anything else is evidence of, at best, poor risk assessment and, at worst, a larger agenda whose main elements are unrelated to the safety of individual citizens.
posted by busted_crayons at 6:04 AM on July 7, 2015 [9 favorites]


Let's be clear any statement that the US and British lead war in the Mideast made anyplace in Europe or America less safe is speculation--it may be, and is, logical to assume this is the case but it is still speculation based on one's beliefs, biases and writing of near term history.

I get what you are saying, but pretending this began in 2001 is a lie. Perhaps it's too soon to judge the history of the last ten years. But I disagree that the only responsibility lies with the individual perpetrators.

Go back further. To 1916, when Britain, France and Russia carved up the middle east between them. To 1945, when Roosevelt made a deal with the Saudis to turn a blind eye to Islamic fundamentalism to secure the flow of oil. To 1953, when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran. To 1979, when the CIA began funding and arming the mujahideen in Afghanistan. To 2014, when the drone program is reported to have killed 2,400 people over five years.

But the only necessary and sufficient cause of a terrorist act is a terrorist.

I'd have agreed once. But ten years on, and I'm not so sure.
posted by Acey at 6:22 AM on July 7, 2015 [4 favorites]


Acey, that 2005 thread of yours is chilling in retrospect, and should be Exhibit #1 in "why early reports should not be trusted". Good for you, pointing it out.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:30 AM on July 7, 2015 [10 favorites]


Let's be clear any statement that the US and British lead war in the Mideast made anyplace in Europe or America less safe is speculation

No, it's not.

Al Quida/IS attacks on British soil before The War Against Terror/War on Iraq: 0

After:

7/7, 21/7, Lee Rigby, The Glasgow attacks, the car bombs found in London...
posted by MartinWisse at 6:38 AM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


And in general both Al Quida and IS wouldn't exist had it not been for US & UK involvement with the Middle East:

1) Al Quida grew out the American decision to sponsor the Muhajedin in Afghanistan and give the USSR its own Vietnam, as well as the 1991 Gulf War
2) IS was created by disgruntled ex-Iraqi Army officiers and wouldn't have existed had the US & UK not invaded.

The idea that "If you want to find an appropriate, logical and historically accurate bogeyman I suggest we put the focus on religious extremism and righteousness of any persuasion is naive in the extreme and absolves our own governments from their responsibility. Without continuing western involvement in the Middle East, these groups wouldn't exist or have much reason to attack the west. Doesn't absolve them for the responsibility and guilt for these atrocities of course.
posted by MartinWisse at 6:44 AM on July 7, 2015 [4 favorites]


Yet another reason why Tony Blair should be hung as a traitor.
posted by Artw at 6:49 AM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


Shouldn’t that be hanged as a traitor, Artw, or has the usage changed? Speaking of Mr. Blair, he was reported as having ‘rejected any suggestion that those attacks had been prompted by British interventions in Iraq or Afghanistan,’ claiming that ‘the probable leader of the 7/7 attacks was someone who was first in a training camp in the middle of 2001, before 9/11…’
posted by misteraitch at 6:59 AM on July 7, 2015


Red Ken:

"This was a cowardly attack, which has resulted in injury and loss of life. Our thoughts are with everyone who has been injured, or lost loved ones. I want to thank the emergency services for the way they have responded.

Following the al-Qaeda attacks on September 11th in America we conducted a series of exercises in London in order to be prepared for just such an attack. One of the exercises undertaken by the government, my office and the emergency and security services was based on the possibility of multiple explosions on the transport system during the Friday rush hour. The plan that came out of that exercise is being executed today, with remarkable efficiency and courage, and I praise those staff who are involved.

I'd like to thank Londoners for the calm way in which they have responded to this cowardly attack and echo the advice of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair - do everything possible to assist the police and take the advice of the police about getting home today.

I have no doubt whatsoever that this is a terrorist attack. We did hope in the first few minutes after hearing about the events on the Underground that it might simply be a maintenance tragedy. That was not the case. I have been able to stay in touch through the very excellent communications that were established for the eventuality that I might be out of the city at the time of a terrorist attack and they have worked with remarkable effectiveness. I will be in continual contact until I am back in London.

posted by Artw at 7:00 AM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]




Red Ken

Here's the video of part of it... very emotional
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 7:20 AM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


Two people I know were affected by the events of 7/7. One, a work colleague at the time, was on one of the Underground trains that was attacked and lost her legs. The other, a freelance journalist, was arrested at an Underground station a few days later on suspicion of being involved.

Both have been politicised by the experience, but neither subscribe to any simplistic model of why what happened, happened or see 'blame' as easy to apportion beyond the individuals who actually did the bombing. The fact of what happened to them has been less life-changing than the experiences they've had subsequently. The one friend has become a public campaigner for disability issues, the other has become diligent in monitoring and reporting police injustice. It was certainly remarkable how badly the police behaved - and how much they lied after the event - as it absolutely must have been apparent minutes after they collared him that he was no more a terrorist than the Queen Mother.
posted by Devonian at 7:30 AM on July 7, 2015 [7 favorites]


Shouldn’t that be hanged as a traitor, Artw, or has the usage changed?

Since we're going there.

In American English, both men and meat are hung.

In British English, men are hanged, meat is hung.

Yes. Lovely subject, but there you go. Then again, we're only talking about the intentional death of one person, which is, I guess, better than what happened on 7-July-2005.

ANYWAY.

I remember this mainly because I was in London a couple of weeks later, making my way to Glasgow. I remember this trip for few reasons.

One, it was a pain to get around London because the Circle, Bakerloo, Central and District lines all had large parts shut down due to the attacks.

Two, because I had to contact an officer on the street near Hyde Park and say "Officer, this is going to sound very strange -- no, not in that way (as his eyes got bigger) -- but I'm from Chicago in the Midwest United States, I'm a trained storm spotter, Chicago is on the Northeastern Edge of what we call Tornado Alley, and that (points) is pretty much a classic tornadic supercell, and that bit at the bottom (points again) is a wall cloud, and it's rotating, and my training says 'Call the National Weather Service right now and report that!' But I'm in England? Who do I call? He got me in contact with the Met Office. That particular cell didn't drop a tornado, but the one next in line to the NW did drop one on Birmingham, and they were very thankful for the very accurate report I was giving them, because they could see that cell on radar and it was sort of on the edge on maybe being worrying until I gave them the report of the wall cloud and the rotation, and they started putting out warnings about it.*

It was weird. I was thinking "Wow, that looks exactly like a...they don't get those there do they...no, that's...hey, that's a cop I'm going to ask who to call because the worst that happens is they laugh at me because that's scaring me."

Three, I remember cstross's shit eating grin when he won a Hugo the next week. Even have a photo of it. You still have that jacket?

So, overall, it was a good trip. But London was definitely changed when I arrived.


* Digression, because I do that: You warn on a rotating wall cloud. Yes, it may not actually drop a tornado. But it might drop a tornado at any moment, and the point of a warning is to warn you that a tornado is *about* to hit you. If you wait until the tornado is down, then there's a real chance that it hits someone with no warning at all. Unacceptable to the NWS -- every 0 minute tornado is a failure to them. Yes, they've had them. They work on every one to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

This means there are false warnings. They're good with that. With dual polarization doppler, it's possible to prove that strong tornados are on the ground, because you can see the debris field they kick up in one of the scans. You do not wait for this to warn. Again, that's a 0 minute warning. If you see this, you use this to enhance the warning you should already have out -- "confirmed tornado on the ground doing large damage", but the moment you see that rotation hit a certain speed or a spotter sees that rotating wall cloud, you get the warning out. Far better somebody spends a few minutes in shelter for no reason than not spend a few minutes in shelter and die. The biggest reason for developing the WSR-88D radar network, and then later upgrading it to the Dual Polarization transceivers and the superesolution processing system is to allow them to spot tornados faster. The fact that they can spot damaging hail faster as well turns out to be a big bonus.

They're looking at an electrically scanned radar for the next WSR, but it's likely to only be deployed in the Midwest and on the Hurricane Coast because of the cost -- if you're not seeing tornados or hurricanes, the 88D is more than good enough.
posted by eriko at 7:33 AM on July 7, 2015 [14 favorites]


I was on the tube at Euston when it happened and the lights dimmed, presumably across the network, with the electric-magnetic energy of it all. Of course nobody knew what it was at that point.

During the day in the office people crowded round the TV to see what Blair would say, because we were still afraid. He exposed himself as nothing more than a bad actor and people hissed as he spoke.

After work we all walked home, miles and miles - there was no transport at all so huge streams of people were trudging across London's beautiful parks in the sun.
posted by colie at 8:28 AM on July 7, 2015 [3 favorites]


Let's be clear any statement that the US and British lead war in the Mideast made anyplace in Europe or America less safe is speculation

Though while the British government might claim we are safer it may be notable that the terror threat level as assessed by MI5 and the home office has suggested an attack on the UK was highly likely for the majority of time since 2006.
posted by biffa at 8:39 AM on July 7, 2015


I'm reminded of the LiveJournal user icon gif tribute to all the people bringing cups of tea out to the survivors and rescuers.
posted by Jacqueline at 8:47 AM on July 7, 2015 [4 favorites]


I noticed that too biffa - BBC News this lunchtime was still showing the threat level as "severe". It feels like an anachronism to me. On one hand it recalls totalitarian regimes that declare a state of emergency that never gets repealed; on the other, it puts the pointlessness of the whole threat level system in sharp relief. Who even listens to them cry wolf any more?

Acey, that 2005 thread of yours is chilling in retrospect, and should be Exhibit #1 in "why early reports should not be trusted".

Thanks Joe, I found looking through that to be a uniquely horrifying experience, given what we now know. MetaFilter has surely changed since then (though I notice cstross and others were present in the 2005 thread). How many of us would rush to defend the police if it were (God forbid) to happen again?

If nothing else, the events of the last ten years have turned me from taking the establishment at their word to distrusting everything they tell me. Age will do that, sure... but still, I can't help but feel we have collectively changed for the better in that regard.

As for the victims of this branded and hijacked tragedy: I still feel bad that they not only had to suffer and die for no good reason, but that they should be used to justify yet more suffering and death. In that respect, we still have so much left to learn.
posted by Acey at 9:04 AM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


MartinWisse--structure it anyway you wish--the nice thing about political and historical analysis is it can be written to please the audience, the writer or both. I have little doubt that you are better informed than I but I do believe I acknowledged the devastating consequences of the Western intervention in the Mideast. Nevertheless--It is not naive to think that religious extremism is a fundamental and consistent factor in terrorism, or if you are pleased call it political terrorism riding the back of religious extremism. Besides--does it really make any difference if it is, or is not, naive. Having followed Metafilter for a long long time it is predictable , and often appropriate, for the West to take its fair share of criticism but I assume you recognize that the burden for human pain, suffering, violence can be broadly shared.
posted by rmhsinc at 9:07 AM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


religious extremism is a fundamental and consistent factor in terrorism

It's actually not that much of a factor. The young men who do these things get stoked up by watching videos of Abu Ghraib, Palestinian children being decapitated by Israeli cluster bombs, and US drone pilots laughing at 'bug splat' etc, and take their cultural alienation to horrifying extremes having been given a vocabulary and sense of belonging by a religious structure.

It's just like religious devotion isn't much of a factor when US soldiers are busy cutting the ears off bodies or whatever they do now.
posted by colie at 9:14 AM on July 7, 2015



As an American, I'd say that all government claims in this area need to be viewed with extreme skepticism. We're deluged with "terrorism alerts" and ginned up plots, courtesy of the FBI, but they never appear to see the actual attacks coming.


To be fair, there is a selection effect going on here. If the FBI or MI5 or whoever knows about a terrorist plot, they're going to try to disrupt it, which, if they are at all competent, is going to make it less likely to succeed. They can't try to stop the plots they don't know about before they happen, so those might be more likely to succeed.

you were still far more likely to be killed or injured by a car or falling off a ladder than blown up by a bomb.

This is still true, in the US and the UK.

52 people, not including the 4 bombers, were killed in the 7/7 attacks in 2005 in the UK. According to the UK government, 3201 people were killed in car accidents in the UK in 2005. You were more than 60 times as likely to be killed in a car accident in the UK in 2005 as you were to be killed in a terrorist attack. In the US in 2001, 42,196 people were killed in car accidents, and 2977 were killed in the 9/11 attacks (not including the hijackers). You were 14 times as likely to be killed in a car accident as you were to be killed by terrorists in the US in 2001. Both of these calculations probably overestimate the likelihood of being killed by terrorists, by looking at the worst years in recent history. You are much more likely to be killed in a car accident in the US or UK than you are to be killed by terrorists.
posted by Anne Neville at 10:27 AM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


Terrorism never has been about how many people are killed. The clue is in the name. The gunman in Tunisia never thought he could kill all European tourists, but he damn well knew he could scare most European tourists away from Tunisia. Much Islamist terrorism in the West is about radicalizing non-Muslims. Intellectually you know that only a percent of a percent of Muslims might ever commit such a crime, but they want you to look sideways at the other 99.9%. Statistics won't help because humans don't work like that.
posted by Thing at 10:59 AM on July 7, 2015


colie: that is a fairly narrow view of terrorism--over looks the multi-century conflicts between Protestants/Catholics, Muslim /Muslim, Muslim/Hindu, Fundamentalists/Social Progressives (abortion) and the historical/contemporary conflicts in India, US, North Ireland, UK, Malaysia, Somalia, Nigeria, Sudan,Tunisia, Egypt etc. I will grant you that religious extremism can be used to mask political objectives but religious terrorism/extremism is a historical phenomena. Exoerts can and will debate why a particular individual takes the path of terrorism but it is a bit more complicated than you suggest.
posted by rmhsinc at 11:26 AM on July 7, 2015


Though I joined Metafilter in March 2005, I didn't know y'all well enough back then for this to be my go to place like it is now. So I went on my blog. Links are obsolete, an update can be seen in teh sidebar.
posted by infini at 1:08 PM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


My experience reflects what Devonian said.
posted by infini at 1:09 PM on July 7, 2015


There's so much I can say on this, on the various aspects being covered in the comments - the world politics, the police, being brown while traveling, the algorithms that can fuck your peace of mind, that it didn't have to turn out this way (current events and atrocities) whatever else etc but I am taking the decision to step back and out.
posted by infini at 1:12 PM on July 7, 2015


From the BBC link:

But as well as usual symptoms, Dr d'Ardenne and her team began to discover some unexpected psychological reactions, unique to 7 July survivors.
"We found people were not angry. They did not blame al-Qaeda [which later claimed responsibility for the attacks]. They did not blame the bombers.
"The people they blamed were quite curious. They blamed the government and foreign policy. And they blamed themselves. [One person] thought they were being punished."


Are there any comparable studies done about this? Is this unique to the survivors of this particle situation? I've never heard anything about this in regard to 9/11.
posted by gucci mane at 3:16 PM on July 7, 2015


In American English, both men and meat are hung.

Nope. It's "hanged" for "executed by hanging" and "hung" for pictures, curtains, and such, in both American and British English. See for instance the New York Times, here, here; Washington Post here, etc.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 9:12 PM on July 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


« Older Zee! Ee! Arr! Oh! Zee! Ee! Arr! Oh!   |   “This is stuff that is not floating in the harbor... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments