London Bombs

[miel]

BBC news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6261076.stm)

Obviously, weird things happen with terrorism but I find it strange that they arrested these suspects. An Iranian doctor of Kurdish dissent? Two doctors?

One thing that was shocking with the last London bombing was that some of the people that did it were these seemingly normal, even fairly nice guys. One was a teacher that absolutely everyone loved. So there are some things going on that it is impossible to understand from the outside. Still, I wonder if they arrested these guys because they were the only middle-easterners who were around the hospital. I guess all the false arrests in the U.S. make me concerned the police are not very good at getting the actual people. Still, I guess there is no telling who will do it or why.

Thank God they got the bombs and disarmed them when they did.

[miel]

Another eye-witness Sonja Bakkes said that most people in the area seemed "very blasé" about the situation.

"People are just having a look and obviously wanting to know how they can get to where they're going but everyone's very calm. No one's overly excited.

"Everyone's going to work as usual... I don't think people really know what's going on."

BBC News on first bomb discovery (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6252730.stm)

Londoners! Can you imagine how Americans would react? I couldn't believe how calm it was in London after the July, 2005 attack. I was there a few days afterward and it was like nothing had happened. I know people are affected but I admire this ability to go on and deal. People in Mumbai did this after the Mumbai bombings as well. If you really want to fight terrorism, this is not a bad way to do it--to keep your head about you.

[ysolde]

Well, I have to say that we in NYC were at work (except down on Wall St) on September 13. We were nervous, and people were still looking for missing loved ones (we were having a hard time dealing with the notion that almost everyone who had not yet been found was dead), but we went about our business.

[bookworm]

The other thing to keep in mind, though, is that Londoners are pretty familiar with bombs. Before the IRA cease fire, they were fairly common...and that was not that long ago. They also survived the Blitz (obviously longer ago).

(ETA: I was responding to the original post(s), not ysolde.)

[miel]

I should revise that statement. 9/11 was horrific and unprecedented of course people in NYC could not help but be affected. And I know New Yorkers went about their business. Other countries have more of a history with terrorist attacks also.

I guess what I meant was that this is a way of defying terrorism. Our media tends to whip us up into an hysterical frenzy at the mere possibility of a threat. Then the government jumps on the bandwagon and exploits it. The more calm we stay, the less we can be manipulated both by the government and by the terrorists.

Terrorism is very frightening. I admire New Yorkers just like I admire Londoners for going on after something so awful. New Yorkers are probably less likely to go off the deep end over threats than Americans in other places even though they have more to worry about. Maybe it is living in a big city that does it?

I do get scared myself on occasion so I really admire the example of the people in London, New York and Mumbai.

[ysolde]

I think it's true that places like England and Spain, that have delat with terrorism for decades, are simply better equipped, politically and psychologically, to deal with terrorist attacks. As for NYC, I just remember feeling like what choice did I have but to go about my life? It's not like I was going to pack up and leave town; that would only give our enemies a small measure of victory. Better to just get on with life, with friends, lovers, and a renewed sense of hope.

[tenofcups]

Well, I have to say that we in NYC were at work (except down on Wall St) on September 13.

That's not exactly accurate. I worked around Astor Place at the time and the city requested non-essential businesses below 14th Street be closed for several days. I don't remember exactly when our office opened back up, but it was definitely after the 13th.

Having lived in NYC at the time and having several business contacts in London, it seems to me that Londoners do take this in stride much more so than we did. Besides possible overall personality differences, unfortunately, they also have far more experience over many more years with these kinds of things.

[ysolde]

That's not exactly accurate. I worked around Astor Place at the time and the city requested non-essential businesses below 14th Street be closed for several days. I don't remember exactly when our office opened back up, but it was definitely after the 13th.

Having lived in NYC at the time and having several business contacts in London, it seems to me that Londoners do take this in stride much more so than we did. Besides possible overall personality differences, unfortunately, they also have far more experience over many more years with these kinds of things.


Oh, OK. In midtown, we were definitely open on the 13th. Although I was asked (quietly) to leave early on the 13th, because there were bomb threats all over town, and they were afraid that there would be one in our building, causing security to shut down the elevators and me to get stuck. So I was asked to leave aroound 2:30 on the 13th, quickly and quietly. I ended up going back to my neighborhood (Chelsea) and getting a haircut. It was pretty quiet.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

You know, London actually isn't just "business as usual" immediately after either.

My company's London office was closed for several days last week because of what's going on.

[sxsw_dad]

I guess what I meant was that this is a way of defying terrorism. Our media tends to whip us up into an hysterical frenzy at the mere possibility of a threat. Then the government jumps on the bandwagon and exploits it. The more calm we stay, the less we can be manipulated both by the government and by the terrorists.
I couldn't agree with you more on this statement! Can you say Patriot Act?

I do get scared myself on occasion so I really admire the example of the people in London, New York and Mumbai.
Question not only for you but for everyone:

What would make you feel safe if terrorism like what happened in London and 9/11 continues to happen?

[jnettie]

Londoners! Can you imagine how Americans would react? I couldn't believe how calm it was in London after the July, 2005 attack. I was there a few days afterward and it was like nothing had happened. I know people are affected but I admire this ability to go on and deal. People in Mumbai did this after the Mumbai bombings as well. If you really want to fight terrorism, this is not a bad way to do it--to keep your head about you.

Eh, I wouldn't call it business as usual. DH and I were also in London the week after the 2005 tube bombing. There was a moment of silence at the same time the bombings were a week later. The whole city stopped. It was amazing. In that moment, you could feel how the bombings really affected the residents of that city.

But, aside from a chunk of the Picadilly line being out, London really wasn't affect to the same scale as New York was on Sept. 11. More than one subway line was effected here. An entire section of New York was shut down for a very long time. But, still, like Ysolde said, I was back at work within a few days as well.

I'll echo what others have said about the IRA bombings, too. We had a really interesting conversation with a couple of ladies in a cheese shop about London and New York and the reactions to terrorist attacks. They talked about being through this before with the IRA.

Also, the British news is far less inflammatory than American news. I remember DH calling his mom from London and she was in a tizzy about something that they were reporting in America about London and she was worried about us. Well, this was something they barely touched on the BBC. We had heard about it, but didn't think it was a big deal.

However...I'll buy in to your conspiracy theories. It surprised me that people were arrested at all, since aren't these usually suicide bombings? But, London is filled with cameras, that's how they got people on the 2005 bombings, so they probably have video of these guys doing it, or so I would hope.

[ysolde]

Question not only for you but for everyone:

What would make you feel safe if terrorism like what happened in London and 9/11 continues to happen?

The world has changed. I grew up going to Europe every summer (my grandparents, aunt, uncle, and cousins lived in Spain), and I got used ot the threat of terrorism, to some extent. I think, after the 93 attack on the WTC, I realized it could happen here. September 11 brought it home in a whole new way. But, to me, anyway, the best way to fight back against terrorism is to enjoy the freedoms of our society, not to turn our country into an overbearing theocracy. I fear the government much more than I fear terrorists.

[Asha]

However...I'll buy in to your conspiracy theories. It surprised me that people were arrested at all, since aren't these usually suicide bombings? But, London is filled with cameras, that's how they got people on the 2005 bombings, so they probably have video of these guys doing it, or so I would hope.
according to cnn, they were seen leaving the car. it was not a suicide bombing. i saw surveillance photos of the two leaving the car. all of the cars were empty except for the bombs. its not that remarkable to me that they were dr's. all kinds of people are filled with hatered. speculation on cnn stated that al queda is now recruiting more professional people bc it is easier for them to obtain visas into the western countries and they draw less suspicion.

[sxsw_dad]

But, to me, anyway, the best way to fight back against terrorism is to enjoy the freedoms of our society, not to turn our country into an overbearing theocracy. I fear the government much more than I fear terrorists.
I fear the government too! That's why things like the Patriot Act scare me to death! AH!

[diam124]

But, aside from a chunk of the Picadilly line being out, London really wasn't affect to the same scale as New York was on Sept. 11. More than one subway line was effected here. An entire section of New York was shut down for a very long time.

Exactly. I don't think you can really compare the two events and the reactions. The destruction on 9/11 was on such a bigger scale. I think maybe it's more appropriate to compare the London bombings to the 1993 WTC bombing (I know more people in London died so they are not comparable in terms of loss of life). I doubt many people in NY changed their routines after that.

[Niobe]

The world has changed. I grew up going to Europe every summer (my grandparents, aunt, uncle, and cousins lived in Spain), and I got used ot the threat of terrorism, to some extent. I think, after the 93 attack on the WTC, I realized it could happen here. September 11 brought it home in a whole new way. But, to me, anyway, the best way to fight back against terrorism is to enjoy the freedoms of our society, not to turn our country into an overbearing theocracy. I fear the government much more than I fear terrorists.

Well said. By changing our lives, reducing our freedoms, and living in fear, we're doing EXACTLY what the terrorists are hoping to achieve. I don't worry about my security honestly. I'm far more likely to die in a car accident or slipping in the shower then by a terrorist act, even if they increase 10 or 100-fold. I'm just not willing to live my life worrying that way.

Still comes back to that old Ben Franklin quote.

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

[jnettie]

according to cnn, they were seen leaving the car. it was not a suicide bombing. i saw surveillance photos of the two leaving the car. all of the cars were empty except for the bombs. its not that remarkable to me that they were dr's. all kinds of people are filled with hatered. speculation on cnn stated that al queda is now recruiting more professional people bc it is easier for them to obtain visas into the western countries and they draw less suspicion.

I think that's the most fascinating, for lack of a better word, aspect of this whole thing, and what makes me beat my head against the wall with all the Patriot Act crap. The scary thing is that the terrorists actually follow all the rules up until the blow something up! It's looking at our system and seeing how they can get around it.

However, it seems to me the backlash has been to tighten up on illegal immigration. It's all ass backwards.

[miel]

What would make you feel safe if terrorism like what happened in London and 9/11 continues to happen?
Reply With Quote

That's a great question. I wish that the government had begun a more extensive program of taking care of high value targets, attending to shipping sites, developed more extensive national emergency programs, worked with states and cities to develop these programs, given more money to local law enforcement. But I am not a security expert. There are many things that could be done that

(a) don't drastically interfere with personal freedoms. First, get your act together about shipping! No need to tap phone calls. It is true that if there is an increase of interest in people and things coming in and out of the U.S. then there will be some interference. But the Patriot Act needs to be amended to ensure that judicial oversight occurs. I trust the courts to protect secrets!

(b) Are matters of ordinary law enforcement. In many cases--Peru, I think and the U.K. and Spain local and federal law enforcement was far more critical in getting terrorists than using the secret police. We don't need a secret police in this country.

[miel]

P.S. I'm not knocking the FBI. The FBI is critical as are all federal agencies. What I mean is that if I had confidence that the government wasn't just playing spy games and trying to erode civil rights rather than actually looking for these people, I'd feel safer. Also, I'd think 'well, they are doing what they can do' and accept that miracles cannot occur unless I want to live in a totalitarian state. I certainly don't believe that now. We get the erosion of democracy without the safety.

[kalogrias]

P.S. I'm not knocking the FBI. The FBI is critical as are all federal agencies. What I mean is that if I had confidence that the government wasn't just playing spy games and trying to erode civil rights rather than actually looking for these people, I'd feel safer. Also, I'd think 'well, they are doing what they can do' and accept that miracles cannot occur unless I want to live in a totalitarian state. I certainly don't believe that now. We get the erosion of democracy without the safety.

I am against most sections of the Patriot Act as well. But I just wanted to point out that the FBI is only partially responsible for the so-called "spy games". The NSA handles a lot more of the recording/other stuff.

ITA with Ysolde. I, too, fear the government more than the terrorists. I am terrified of the somewhat cavalier attitude it currently seems to take towards civil liberties -- and, even more petrifying, the seemingly distinct and clear misunderstanding they have of our enemies who produce the terrorists -- and the mishandling of government resources set aside to take care of the threats.

It will happen in the US again at some point. We all know that. I just wish that I had more confidence in our government to handle it properly, and in our society to rebound in a confident manner. True, we are not the Israelis or the British, who, as PP have said, have experience with these things, but we could stand to learn a lesson from them about not giving in to the fear and about not letting them win.

[miel]

rue, we are not the Israelis or the British, who, as PP have said, have experience with these things, but we could stand to learn a lesson from them about not giving in to the fear and about not letting them win.

It's had such a huge effect on those societies, of course. Especially Israel.

There's something in American culture that makes us averse to risk also? There's a cultural element as well.

[kalogrias]

ITA, part of it is cultural. I think we're so used to being "safe" from outside threats that the idea of one doesn't really sit well with our national conscience. With the exception of the revolutionary war and the war of 1812, we've never had to fight a foreign war in CONUS (continental US) until now. CONUS has been protected by the oceans and by the fact that the aggressors were either smaller, less powerful, or further away. Frankly, as a population, we are simply not prepared to fight this particular war. We are not prepared for the casualties that would result, and we are not prepared for the backlash and the outcry. I'd like to think that those who protect us are prepared, but even there, I'm not sure that the enormity of the problem is understood. Which makes sense, because it's such a departure from our cultural norm that it's mind-boggling.

[jnettie]

IMNSHO, we just need to get our asses out of there. Historically, we helped to mess it up (though Britain did a pretty good job screwing up Iraq in the early part of the 20th cen), but there are so many problems with clans and radical Islam that we couldn't even begin to help anyone, especially by putting our soldiers in the mix. I think at least half of the reason for continued terrorist attacks is just our mere presence in the Middle East.

[kalogrias]

I think at least half of the reason for continued terrorist attacks is just our mere presence in the Middle East.

It's much more than our mere presence. It's the fact that we strongly ally ourselves with Israel (with good reason!), and that we are seen as the strongest "western" and capitalistic society, and the fact that what the US intrinsically stands for goes directly against what much of fundamentalist Islam embraces.

I'd like to think that it would be as easy as us pulling out of the Middle East (in a perfect world, where our departure would not leave a power vacuum of hideous proportions in Iraq, and where Israel would not live under constrant threat). Unfortunately, I think the reality is that it's so far beyond that, that the difference it would make would be slight.

I disagreed with going into Iraq. I thought it was the worst idea I had heard of in a long time. Anyone familiar with the area should have understood the possibility of what was going to happen. The chances for peace are slim right now, and Iraq has turned into a mini-training ground for terrorist weapons.

Unfortunately, though, we created this mess, and it's our responsibility to figure out how to make it at least a little better before we disentangle ourselves.

[sxsw_dad]

IMNSHO, we just need to get our asses out of there. Historically, we helped to mess it up (though Britain did a pretty good job screwing up Iraq in the early part of the 20th cen), but there are so many problems with clans and radical Islam that we couldn't even begin to help anyone, especially by putting our soldiers in the mix. I think at least half of the reason for continued terrorist attacks is just our mere presence in the Middle East.
I think Ron Paul said this at one of the debates but it has stuck with me.. "Reagan was right we don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics."

[ejs]

I think Ron Paul said this at one of the debates but it has stuck with me.. "Regan was right we don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics."

Why is he quoting Donald Regan?

[sxsw_dad]

Why is he quoting Donald Regan?
I'm assuming you mean Ronald Reagan? If so in the context of his argument at the debate I believe he was speaking of when all the troops where killed in the bombing in Lebanon.

I did find a uTube of the debate that puts Ron Paul's comments into context if you'd like to watch it you can see it here. He talks about it around 11:30 left in the clip and then says the quote I have at about 8 minutes left. Also, around the 8 minute mark is where it gets really interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8

[ejs]

I'm assuming you mean Ronald Regan? If so in the context of his argument at the debate I believe he was speaking of when all the troops where killed in the bombing in Lebanon.

I did find a uTube of the debate that puts Ron Paul's comments into context if you'd like to watch it you can see it here. He talks about it around 11:30 left in the clip and then says the quote I have at about 8 minutes left. Also, around the 8 minute mark is where it gets really interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8

Oh. So you meant to say Ronald Reagan?

[sxsw_dad]

Oh. So you meant to say Ronald Reagan?

oops.. yes that's correct. Guess I should learn how to spell. doh! sorry for the confusion.

[jnettie]

It's much more than our mere presence. It's the fact that we strongly ally ourselves with Israel (with good reason!), and that we are seen as the strongest "western" and capitalistic society, and the fact that what the US intrinsically stands for goes directly against what much of fundamentalist Islam embraces.

I'd like to think that it would be as easy as us pulling out of the Middle East (in a perfect world, where our departure would not leave a power vacuum of hideous proportions in Iraq, and where Israel would not live under constrant threat). Unfortunately, I think the reality is that it's so far beyond that, that the difference it would make would be slight.

I disagreed with going into Iraq. I thought it was the worst idea I had heard of in a long time. Anyone familiar with the area should have understood the possibility of what was going to happen. The chances for peace are slim right now, and Iraq has turned into a mini-training ground for terrorist weapons.

Unfortunately, though, we created this mess, and it's our responsibility to figure out how to make it at least a little better before we disentangle ourselves.

*sigh* I know. And I agree. But, honestly, I don't think there is any way we can fix the mess we made. If anything, I just wish our only involvement was building schools, bringing food, helping people start business, and cleaning up. No army. No bombs. Just help. But that's not why we're there, now is it? So, that's why I just wish we'd stay out of it.

[sxsw_dad]

*sigh* I know. And I agree. But, honestly, I don't think there is any way we can fix the mess we made. If anything, I just wish our only involvement was building schools, bringing food, helping people start business, and cleaning up. No army. No bombs. Just help. But that's not why we're there, now is it? So, that's why I just wish we'd stay out of it.
I totally agree with you! Because of this it's been very tough for me to really decide on who to support for president. There are a lot of things that I support and like usual not one supports everything I do (I mean how could they really). However, all the GOP candidates with the exception of Ron Paul are out because they want to continue the direction that the country is going and I definitely can't support that. In my initial research on the Democratic side they all talk a good talk but a lot of them aren't that consistent in how they vote. Obama seems like a good guy but he was for the immigration bill that just failed. Support for something like that doesn't make me to happy. So I'm thinking about Edwards but I need to read up more on him before I can really make a choice.

Arg! This is tough! What do you all think about the race so far? (maybe I should start a new thread if enough are interested?)

[miel]

Article by Juan Cole on the terrorist bombers (http://http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/07/09/uk_terrorists/)

So it looks likely they did get the right people this time, which is good.

I'm not sure how important or useful it is to understand the terrorists or how they think but I do think people tend to want to understand them. This article is kind of the obvious thing--they get obsessed with some issue, spend a lot of time together, their world view gets completely distorted and then they do terrible things.

I wonder if there are two other things in there (1) the desire for some kind of revenge and (2) a feeling of powerlessness that makes them want to be powerful through some attention grabbling horrible act. Violence feels powerful to people even when it so rarely accomplishes what they thing it will accomplish.

I don't think anyone can become a terrorist or would. I do think it is scary that fairly average people are attracted to terrorism. They might be certain types of people but I am worried there are a fair number of people like that. We want to think they are these insane, evil fanatics--maybe they end up that way but I don't think they necessarily start out that way.

[jnettie]

I wonder if there are two other things in there (1) the desire for some kind of revenge and (2) a feeling of powerlessness that makes them want to be powerful through some attention grabbling horrible act. Violence feels powerful to people even when it so rarely accomplishes what they thing it will accomplish.

I don't think anyone can become a terrorist or would. I do think it is scary that fairly average people are attracted to terrorism. They might be certain types of people but I am worried there are a fair number of people like that. We want to think they are these insane, evil fanatics--maybe they end up that way but I don't think they necessarily start out that way.

Bolding is mine.

You know, I think any of us has that potential. Think about it for a second. Your country, your home, and your family are occupied by a foreign army. Family members have been killed, homes destroyed, lives in chaos. And there seems to be very little you can do.

If you look in our own history, there are acts very similar to this. If you are ever on Wall Street in NYC, go see the JP Morgan building. You will notice poc marks in the outside wall on the north side. These are from a bombing done in the 19th century. JP Morgan was a first class asshole towards his workers. A few of them didn't like how he was treating them, so they sent him a message with dynamite.

FTR I don't agree with terrorism. I think it's the absolute WRONG way to express your message. I'm a passive resistance type of gal. I can just understand what might bring someone to terrorism.

[miel]

I can just understand what might bring someone to terrorism.

All very good points. I think this is something people are sometimes afraid to admit in this political climate. The fact is that terrorism has been used in a variety of historical periods by very different kinds of people and in some cases we might understand it even be driven to it ourselves.

I should mention that I think there is a difference between property damage or other types of 'violent' protest and killing innocent people to make a political point. I think there are exceptional cases where it might seem necessary even to a peaceful compassionate person--but they are so exceptional. I'm not sure if the JP Morgan thing really was terrorism. I guess it depends on whether there was a self-defense aspect, whether innocent bystanders were targeted or just Morgan and so on. I'd never heard of that--that's interesting.

What terrorism is is actually hard to define. Some people talk as if only an individual can be a terrorist but when a country bombs another country's civilian population in order to get them to submit that is also a kind of terrorism. I tend to think of terrorism as an attack on people who pose no direct threat in order to convince other people (politicians, the rest of the population) to do something. You try to create terror to make your political point but if you don't kill people, then I think the situation may be different.

A lot of people are very shocked by suicide bombing but I actually think it probably makes it easier for the average person with some moral values to kill innocent people because you don't have to live with the consequences and the reality of what you are doing gets very blurred by the fact you are killing yourself. It makes it seem less horrible to you and more 'noble' even though the suicide aspect doesn't change the fact you are killing innocent people.

I think it is similar to being an air force pilot who bombs people. They tend to be less psychologically disturbed by their actions because they are far removed from the consequences.

[Asha]

A lot of people are very shocked by suicide bombing but I actually think it probably makes it easier for the average person with some moral values to kill innocent people because you don't have to live with the consequences and the reality of what you are doing gets very blurred by the fact you are killing yourself. It makes it seem less horrible to you and more 'noble' even though the suicide aspect doesn't change the fact you are killing innocent people.
i really don't think that is the logic that suicide bombers or those who encourage it are using. it seems as if a lot of suicide bombers come from cultures in which the group has a higher value than that of the individual, meaning that one does not really question doing something if it is for the sake of a group.

[miel]

it seems as if a lot of suicide bombers come from cultures in which the group has a higher value than that of the individual, meaning that one does not really question doing something if it is for the sake of a group.

Maybe that is true for some people. For many of these groups there is a lot of indoctrination that takes place and they use young people--maybe because it is easier to indoctrinate them. However, I do think that for most people it is hard to take another's life. A study of soldiers after WWI showed that most of them never fired their guns and they wouldn't fire even when they were being fired on. Normal people don't like to kill other people even if obviously there are a lot of horrible cases where people do just that. It is hard to imagine these teenagers who sometimes do these horrible things in Sri Lanka or Israel would be able to murder people face to face. I think the bombs make it easier because then all they really have to do is push a button.

I don't know if it is a cultural thing or a group thing that comes out of specific circumstances. Suicide bombers come out of particular political circumstances and groups but usually there are people in their culture who are critical of those specific groups. Also, the London bombers in 2005 were very assimilated and their own families and their communities were shocked by their actions. (One of the guys was Jamaican, I think.) I think it was the political group they belonged to that made them able to do something so terrible--I think those groups might be like cults in a way that reduce the feeling of individual criticism and responsibility.

It's not like I actually know or understand exactly how these things work! I hope it doesn't seem like I am pretending to know what I am talking about. I guess the reason the British cases worry me is that it does make it look like they could spread because ordinary people would get involved and that would be much harder to prevent.

These things are incredibly hard to understand. It's like understanding why people do the evil things the do and maybe we can't ever understand that.

[jnettie]

Miel, on the JP Morgan bombing (http://www.financialhistory.org/fh/2002/74-1.htm) (which was in 1920, my mistake!)

Nearly a century later, Wall Street was again hit by catastrophe, but this time it was no accident. Just before noon on Wednesday, September 16, 1920, a horse-drawn wagon covered with a canvas tarpaulin pulled to a stop on the north side of Wall Street across from the House of Morgan. The driver abandoned the wagon and blended in with the lunchtime crowd before the dynamite-packed wagon exploded. Debris ricocheted through the canyons of the Financial District and shattered windows as far as half a mile away. The bombing was likely an attempt to steal the $900 million worth of gold ingots being transferred that day. If that was the intent, however, the heist was unsuccessful, as no gold was stolen.

The attack killed 38 people and injured more than 300. Junius Morgan, grandson of company founder J. Pierpont Morgan, suffered only minor injuries to his hand. J.P. "Jack" Morgan, Jr., then president of the bank, was traveling in Scotland at the time of the attack. When he returned, he found his building pock-marked from the explosion. These marks can still be seen on the facade of the Morgan building today.

I'm apt to think it wasn't a robbery attempt myself, but a message to Morgan.

i really don't think that is the logic that suicide bombers or those who encourage it are using. it seems as if a lot of suicide bombers come from cultures in which the group has a higher value than that of the individual, meaning that one does not really question doing something if it is for the sake of a group.
Oh, yes. Take, for example, the Japanese in WWII. They killed or treated horrible any American solider that surrendered. That's because, in Japanese culture, you kill yourself - surrender is dishonorable. They viewed American soldiers who surrendered as cowards.

It is likewise for Muslims. Your faith is more important than you as an individual. If you are fighting for Islam, you are fighting to the death. This is not a value we have, and therefor it is hard for any of us to understand why someone would strap explosives to their body and walk in a building with the intent to blow themselves up.