Talk:Attacks on the London Underground

message: I started this article some time ago with the word terrorism in it. If you look up terrorism on wikipedia it says 
Terrorism is a term used to describe certain violent or otherwise harmful acts or threats of such acts. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are: intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for a political goal (as opposed to a hate crime or "madman" attack), deliberately target "non-combatants", and are not conducted by a "legitimate" government.
 
In my opinion all the acts described were violent acts intended to create fear and with a political goal (the first two occasions are not really known, The suffragettes wanted women's rights, the IRA wanted the UK to give Northern Ireland and the muslim extremists wanted the UK government to pull out of Iraq), they all deliberately targeted non-combatants (public transport and it's users) and they were not conducted by a legitimate government.
I propose to keep a redirect page from London Underground terrorism to this article. In this article a brief text will be displayed at the top of the page stating something along the lines of "Although these events can be construed as terrorsim, for the encyclopedic qualities of this article these acts are called attacks"
Ysignal 10:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally disagree, 1. "non-combatants" were not targetted in all the attacks, 2. Who's definition is that - there are 100's of definitions, 3. Is totally POV and therefore not in keeping with WP:NPOV--Vintagekits 13:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Squeaky. I personally don't like the definition mentioned there, as it more or less says governments can't be terrorists. Although that's getting off topic. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 19:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is at it again on the La Mon Restaurant Bombing - I have tried to reason with him but it probably needs someone else tyo step in.--Vintagekits 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: When first created this page correctly dated the Wood Green incident as being the day after the 15 March 1976 incident at West Ham, i.e. the 16th. This is corroborated by all the usual sources - e.g. Croome & Jackson's Rails Through the Clay, Day & Reed's The Story of London's Underground, etc. For some reason, Vintagekits substantial re-editing of the page at 22:22 on 8 January 2007 resulted in it being erroneously dated as the 14th, rather than the 16th. This would make it the Arsenal/Newcastle match according to Qwghlm's information, although it also means their source is wrong in dating it as the 18th. I am therefore reverting Qwghlm's edit and amending accordingly. Nick Cooper 22:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fine but please add in a reference to the book & page number - as it stands leaving it unreferenced when it previously was runs against WP:CITE etc. Qwghlm 11:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wood Green date 

message: There are no reference to the bombing during the second world's war!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.66.144 (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the intro states: "This is a list of deliberate attacks on the infrastructure, staff or passengers of the London Underground". Although the Underground did suffer considerable bomb damage during WW2, none of it was the result of deliberate targeting. In addition, the page was originally called "London Underground terrorism" but was changed due to objections to the use of the word "terrorism". Nick Cooper 17:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII 

message: Taking "deliberate attacks on the infrastructure, staff or passengers of the London Underground" into account, should this really be on there? It wasn't a deliberate attack on any part of the London Underground. Granted part of it was damaged, but setting off a bomb that size in the centre of London is always likely to cause some damage to the London Underground. It definitely wasn't deliberate targeting of the underground like other attacks. One Night In Hackney303 15:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree. Given that the incident main page states that, "St Ethelburga's church was situated seven metres away from the bomb, and that it was outside 99 Bishopsgate (HSBC), this puts it some 200 metres away from the mainline station. It is notable that the standard reference work on LU stations (London Underground Stations, David Leboff, 1994, Ian Allen Ltd., ), although even with the explosion in April 1993, it might have been two late for inclusion. Even so, given that the various elements of the Underground station are fairly spread around, and mostly inside the mainline station, a claim that the explosion "wrecked the Underground station" cannot possibly be true. It may be that there was some damge to some parts of the station, but as you say, it wasn't a direct targetting, and so shouldn't really be here. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll remove it now. Re "wrecked", I only went by what the BBC said. One Night In Hackney303 14:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bishopsgate

message: Apparently, the act of "terrorism" has been glorified. The explosion on the bus took off the roof, and probably wrote off the bus from a safety point of view, but wasn't destroyed by the bomb as pictures after the incident clearly show the bus almost whole minus a roof.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.184.47 (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bus destroyed