Leave a Comment below!
When I first heard about this, around 7 this morning, I was honestly relieved that only 2 people were reported dead, and dozens injured. Unfortunately, I just read this account on the BBC webpage
"As of 1345 Royal London Hospital dealt with 208 casualties, 26 of which had been admitted. At the moment 13 are being operated on and three are in intensive care." as of 13:45BST
reporter Dominic Casciani
"Casualties" means dead AND injured, though, remember.
Thanks for the clarification.
I am so glad that you all are safe. When I woke up and heard the news on NPR, I immediately thought of my students and friends in London. I've been fortunate enough to have been contacted by some of the London law students, but have yet to hear from my non-ND friends. I feel shell shocked - not surprised that this has occurred, just tremendously sad!
Please be cautious and know that my family and I are thinking about you all!
Wonderful blog, Brendan! Keep up the good work. I'll keep checking in throughout the day.
Erika
so no official comment from nd yet???
TV news reported this morning that emergency rescue personnel had to do gross surgery in the subway in order to rescue some of the people- so that they might have a chance to survive. While the world deplores these despicable acts, what is needed is a world-wide response. Fanatical Muslims need to be controlled, and it will take a united approach by the world to do it.
so no official comment from nd yet???
Nope, nothing in email, and nothing on the website that I can find.
Official statement here. Not very helpful, though.
I think the 'official statement' may make people worry even more!
I think almost every official statement from NDLS (for the next few years at least) should conclude with the brief statement: "Please see http://www.brendanloy.com/ for the latest information (as long as Mr. Loy is not sleeping)." :)
ROFL
Michelle, I agree. I even e-mailed Gail Peshel to that effect (or at least, that was the implication) ...
Thanks for the update, but I'm a bit confused. Is there any reason to be alarmed, or are you just covering all your bases? Several students over there have repeatedly assured me, since around 8:30 AM South Bend time, that everyone in the program is accounted for and fine. (There's been considerable discussion on my blog, Patrick Roach's blog and Alex Ho's blog.) Is there reason to believe that that information may be incorrect?
She just wrote back:
When I sent my message, I was considering everyone in the summer London program. The 29 students in London who regularly attend Notre Dame Law School are okay. I believe there are still several individuals who are in the program and who attend other law schools that we haven't reached. We have no reason to believe that they are harmed or are in harms way, we just haven't communicated with them
yet. My message was meant to let students know something. My hope is to be able to send another message soon.
It's been my understanding that everyone in the programme has been accounted for. This includes the NDLS students (both from South Bend and the Australia campus) as well as the American students from other law schools. Shortly after the attacks, they had started to create a list of all the students both at the law school and at the dorm to ensure that everyone had been accounted for.
Yeah, that was what I thought too...but by the time they get a comprehensive list out, everyone is going to have moved around! They should have done it earlier when we were all in two places - the dorm and the school. Our group of London students actually haven't heard anything from ND South Bend directed to us as of yet, not even an email saying hey we hope you are ok.
Fanatical Muslims don't need to be controlled. They need to be rounded up or killed. Period.
Mark Johnson, that kind of crap doesn't help anyone.
You know, I was in DC on a program for my school during 9/11, and they never contacted us either (despite lots of folks working on the hill or at the Pentagon) - it was stupid of them then, and it's stupid of ND now.
Scientizzle - the honest expression of emotion at a time like this is important - and, for reasons personal to the individual, is often expressed in politically incorrect and highly emotional ways ...
A rational way to express such feelings, rather than an emotional way, is to remind people about what happened to the original Hashishin ... and that is what is gradually starting to happen to terrorists all over this planet ...
Bin Laden is a 'modern' Old Man of the Mountain ... and his followers are the current version of the Hashishin ...
When the Hashishin got out of control, they were rounded up and killed ...
Is that a better way to phrase it ?
Hmm... now if Mark had said "Fanatical, violent Muslim terrorists don't need to be controlled. They need to be rounded up or killed. Period," I think we could all agree that that statement would be totally fine and appropriate.
And if he had said "Muslims don't need to be controlled. They need to be rounded up or killed. Period," I think we could all agree that that statement would be totally bigoted and inappropriate.
"Fanatical Muslims," on the other hand, is a close call. I guess it depends on what he means by "fanatical." If he means anyone who, say, thinks women should wear a burka, then the statement is inappropriate; such fanaticism is, in my opinion, bad, but I certainly wouldn't support the notion that everyone who subscribes to such beliefs should be shot on sight. On the other hand, if by "fanatical Muslims" he basically means "fanatical, violent Muslim terrorists," then there's nothing wrong with saying they need to be killed. Indeed, his reaction was precisely the reaction I had when I saw leadfoot's original statement -- "we don't need to control 'em, we need to kill 'em!" -- but then it occurred to me that leadfoot might have had in mind a broader definition of "fanatical Muslims" than just "fanatical, violent Muslim terrorists." So I refrained from commenting. Anyway, I am willing to give Mark the benefit of the doubt, that he wasn't calling for the deaths of anyone except terrorists -- i.e., that "fanatical Muslims" was meant to refer only to the violent bad apples within the faith. And calling for the deaths of terrorists is something I whole-heartedly support.
As for Alasdair's statement that "the honest expression of emotion at a time like this is important," I certainly agree, but I won't extend the principle too far: for example, if someone's honest emotion is "kill all Muslims," I would heartily condemn that expression of emotion and urge others not to lend it any credence. However, I don't believe that Mark's comments fall in that category, at least not necessarily, and as I said above, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt re: what he meant by "fanatical Muslims."
And now, cue Andrew to come in here and make various incendiary remarks about how OBVIOUSLY it is okay to call for the deaths of "fanatical Muslims." ;)
If it was for Carl Sagan, would it be a 'billions cue' ?
I was literally in the car somewhere in the Nevada desert when all this happened and didn't hear about it until very late Thursday night when Bea and myself arrived in Boulder, Colorado. We were there for my friend James' wedding, the reception for which took place in Littleton, just around the corner from Columbine High School. I have had no internet access until right now.
All that aside, yes I agree with Mark--we need to be killing fanatical Muslims by the truckloads before they get the message. Trouble is, they don't travel together in convenient truckloads to be targeted from near or afar, necessitating the arduous task of weeding them out in the midst of their slightly more sane non-fanatical fundamentalist Muslims that crowd the lands of North Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.
slightly more sane non-fanatical fundamentalist Muslims
LOL...
I don't know why, but that made me giggle. :)
Commenting by HaloScan.com
