Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 29, 2007

THWARTED BOMB IN LONDON....While some of the recent alleged terrorist plots in the U.S. haven't withstood much scrutiny, it looks as if London avoided a serious terrorist incident today.

Police in London say they have deactivated a bomb packed with nails and capable of creating huge casualties, raising renewed fears of a terrorist strike almost two years after the city was hit by deadly suicide bombers.

The device, consisting of 200 liters of fuel, gas cylinders and nails linked to a triggering mechanism, was found in a car in Haymarket, in the city's busy nightclub and theater district shortly before 2 a.m. (0100 GMT) on Friday.

British police anti-terror chief Peter Clarke said the explosives would have resulted in significant injury and loss of life had they detonated.

Details are still a little sketchy, but apparently an ambulance crew alerted police after they noticed a smoke-filled car parked close to the popular nightclub. Explosives officers discovered the fuel and nails attached to a "potential means of detonation," inside the vehicle. Officers "courageously" disabled the trigger by hand, Clarke he said.

Several news outlets are noting the proximity to the anniversary of the 7/7 attacks, but I'm also curious about the possible attack coinciding with the announcement of a new British Prime Minister. The '93 attack in NYC happened shortly after Clinton took office; 9/11 occurred shortly after Bush took office; might today after something to do with Brown?

Regardless, I think Atrios raises a valid point about the temptations towards hysteria: "Watching the CNN coverage of the thwarted car bombing in London I'm struck by how the coverage makes something that didn't happen thousands of miles away sound like something around the block. You know, foiled bomb plot in London! Terrorists crawling up through your toilet!"

Good point. As for Londoners, the chances of something like this sending London into a panic are about zero. In 2005, Slate's David Plotz happened to be in London on 7/7 and noted, within a couple of hours of the attacks, "When I walked by the Queen's Larder Pub, not half a mile from the Tavistock Square wreckage, at 11 a.m., a half-dozen men were sitting together at a sidewalk table, hoisting their morning pints of ale. Civilization must go on, after all."

Hearty bunch, those Brits.

Steve Benen 10:24 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (120)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Another good example that the best way of fighting terrorism is that much maligned "law enforcement."

Posted by: Virginia Dutch on June 29, 2007 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Steve--Atrios may choose to view this as not affecting us, but I have an 11-year-old travelling with a group in London who was supposed to attend a play tonight in that area of London. It's a small world now, and an event "that didn't happen thousands of miles away" can be closer than Atrios thinks. He would have a hard time convincing my wife that she shouldn't be concerned about it.

Posted by: Copernicus on June 29, 2007 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

TO me, this is the "liberal news" again playing right from the Republican play book.

The only way they win elections is if the people of the USA are scared. And then, if they believe that Republican might be better at protecting us.

I call it 0 for 2.

But the news, obediently, tries to ratchet up the fear.

Posted by: Mark-NC on June 29, 2007 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

Another good example that the best way of fighting terrorism is that much maligned "law enforcement."
Posted by: Virginia Dutch

Yea, wait until the plot is formed, the bomb is built, the car is parked, and the fuse in burning and then have cops find it and disarm it by hand.

I'm not saying law enforcement = bad and war = good, but this is not a shining example of the merits of law enforcement in preventing atacks. They got lucky.

Posted by: Red State Vol on June 29, 2007 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Thing is Copernicus....you have genuine cause for concern. A parent's fear like that is totally understandable. But CNN isn't appealing to a parent's or relative's fear. They're appealing to personal fear of 'This happened in London, when and where will it happen to YOU?!'

Anyways, as the response from the London authorities and Virginia Dutch's post up there helps support:

1) No matter how the hystericonservatives might malign the idea, law inforcement DOES help fight terrorism, and

2) Sometimes, the best way to not let terrorism be successful is to...you know, not let yourself be crippled by fear, despite CNN et. al. constantly trying to remind us that we SHOULD be and even our beds aren't safe from 'teh terir'

Posted by: Kryptik on June 29, 2007 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

Good post, as are all your posts, Steve, but I don't think 9/11 can fairly be characterized as occurring "shortly after Bush took office." Eight months is a good chunk of a four-year term (and would that it had only been one term...).

Posted by: shortstop on June 29, 2007 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK


I'm not saying law enforcement = bad and war = good, but this is not a shining example of the merits of law enforcement in preventing attacks. They got lucky.

Posted by: Red State Vol

The perpetrators of this crime surely attracted attention to themselves with their manner of driving and running from the car. A cynic might say that this was some right wing plot to simulate a terrorist bombing and have the police save the day. The day, of course, being the first day of a new prime minister's term.

Posted by: slanted tom on June 29, 2007 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Yea, wait until the plot is formed, the bomb is built, the car is parked, and the fuse in burning and then have cops find it and disarm it by hand.

It's better than acting on halfassed tips on halfbaked plans, then thrusting them into the spotlight as some great victory, not to mention a reminder that WE SHOULD ALL BE AFRAID OF TERRISM!

They have an unexploded bomb. THe bomb's going to have clues as to who made it more than likely, or at least who gave the materials for it. Follow up on the breadcrumbs, you find the culprits.

Would it be better that they managed to catch someone before they could set a bomb up? Probably, yeah, but it's unrealistic to expect to be able to do that for all whackos wanting to blow crap up, when the alternatives are much less sure fire and not quite as assured to grab genuine threats (as much as the Brooklyn plotters might have had some mean sentiments, trying to sabotage it with blowtorches is hardly as bad as a bomb, considering how utterly and stupidly conspicuous it would be, and thus how easily they'd be caught before any serious damage could be done).

Posted by: Kryptik on June 29, 2007 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Oy, I get a little tired hearing of those phlegmatic Brits. I work on K St. in DC and on 9/11 we could see the smoke from the Pentagon (we thought it was from the Old Executive Office Building, next to the White House.) I went home to my apartment near DuPont Circle. I watched TV for several hours and then, feeling bored, went for a walk. People were seated in outdoor cafes. OK, they were hoisting lattes instead of pints, but you get the idea.

Posted by: Alan Vanneman on June 29, 2007 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

I'm here now, and I came up from the Tube into the middle of the blocked off area. When I got to my destination, an office right on the edge of the blocked off area, all they said to me "is it still taped off down there?"

Americans have a lot to learn about getting a sense of proportion.

Posted by: craigie on June 29, 2007 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

This incident brings up another thought. Why was the reaction so different to 9/11 than to the 93 bombing of the WTC? If they'd have packed more explosives into that van (or a few more vans) the bombing would have dwarfed what occurred on 9/11, with the whole building coming down and everyone in it, no chance for escape.

We got lucky in 93.

Posted by: Red State Vol on June 29, 2007 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

This is gonna cost me another constitutional right.

Posted by: Repack Rider on June 29, 2007 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Yea, wait until the plot is formed, the bomb is built, the car is parked, and the fuse in burning and then have cops find it and disarm it by hand.

shorter Mike: a preemptive invasion of Pakistan may not have foiled this plot before the police foiled it, but it would have been a lot more satisfying.

Posted by: trex on June 29, 2007 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

They got lucky.

Posted by: Red State Vol on June 29, 2007 at 10:35 AM
------------------------

From the article:

"...noticed smoke coming from a car parked in front of the building, Clarke said.

Early photographs of the metallic, pale green Mercedes show a canister bearing the words "patio gas," indicating it was propane gas, next to the car. The back door was open with blankets spilling out."


A canister bearing the words "patio gas", blankets spilling out the back door, and smoke coming out of the car....

If I wanted to make a bomb scare without actually killing someone, that's pretty much how I'd do it---

A smoke signal and a visual cues of explosive matter, coming from an unsecured car.

Posted by: Nick on June 29, 2007 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

shorter Mike: a preemptive invasion of Pakistan may not have foiled this plot before the police foiled it, but it would have been a lot more satisfying.
Posted by: trex

Shorter trex: my reading comprehension sucks, or I just stop reading when I've read what I want to see.

Posted by: Red State Vol on June 29, 2007 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

The worst thing is the traffic, both motor and foot. In that sense, the terrorists have succeeded. Park Lane is currently closed due to a suspected bomb, as well as part of Oxford.

Which ruins my daughter's plans.

Posted by: KathyF on June 29, 2007 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

A cynic might say that this was some right wing plot to simulate a terrorist bombing and have the police save the day. The day, of course, being the first day of a new prime minister's term.
Posted by: slanted tom

Actually, that would be a loony bin nutcase truther moron who also thinks the moon landings were faked.

Posted by: Red State Vol on June 29, 2007 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, to be fair to my fellow Americans:

When checking in for the flight to London, we also had a bomb scare in the terminal at LAX. Everyone filed out into the street, while the whole nine yards showed up - trucks with "Bomb Squad" on the door ("what's the bomb squad, daddy?" is my least favorite question this year), sniffer dogs, a zillion cops, a billion more detectives who obviously watch way too much TV and think far too highly of themselves, etc, etc.

The reaction of all of us was bored indignation, at best. The only fear was the fear of missing the flight.

Posted by: craigie on June 29, 2007 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Nick, I think the cops are the ones who opened the trunk, took out the propane tank, and blankets, etc. Not the bad guys leaving it that way.

Posted by: Pat on June 29, 2007 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

If I were a one-man terrorist organization, I'd be able to set off a string of car bombs in major cities all by my lonesome.

I've never made a bomb, but I think I could pull it off without sending up smoke signals prior to detonation. And I sure wouldn't leave a canister labeled 'patio gas' outside the car, or leave blankets falling out of an open car door.

What kind idiot sets up a bomb attack like that?

And how is it that al-Qaeda can have so much trouble in Iraq attributed to them, but they can't get one or two bomb makers across the porous Mexican border to be setting up car bombs in our major cities?

Posted by: Nick on June 29, 2007 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

Yea, wait until the plot is formed, the bomb is built, the car is parked, and the fuse in burning and then have cops find it and disarm it by hand.

The problem, as I see it, is that we don't have enough troops to spare for an invasion of London.

Guess that means we'll have to rely more on policing and intelligence work.

Posted by: JM on June 29, 2007 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

It's a small world now, and an event "that didn't happen thousands of miles away" can be closer than Atrios thinks.

I am not sure how your specific situation demonstrates that the world is any smaller now. People have always traveled. It has always been quite common for people to have relatives in other countries. Neither CNN's coverage or Atrios comment is really relevant to this in any way.

The point is that most of the people on planet earth don't have any particular reason to feel any fear behind this particular incident but that is not reflected in the way it is covered. The fact that you happen to have a child in the area and a legitimate reason to be concerned, while unfortunate for you, does not constitute a rebuttal of that basic point.

Posted by: brent on June 29, 2007 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

I seriously question the timing of the release of this news. How convenient another "terrorism" news item is strategically released to deflect attention away from Bush admin's low poll ratings, failure in Iraq, failure in Afghanistan, Immigration Bill, high gasoline prices, global warming, resegregation of the public schools, Halliburton!?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on June 29, 2007 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

Nick, I think the cops are the ones who opened the trunk, took out the propane tank, and blankets, etc. Not the bad guys leaving it that way.

Posted by: Pat on June 29, 2007 at 11:04 AM |
----------------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/29/nbomb829.xml

I stand corrected.

On the other hand, after all these years of training al-Qaeda still can't execute a simple car bomb--at least not outside Iraq.

Posted by: Nick on June 29, 2007 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

So, were these terrorists who didn't get the memo that they're not allowed to fight the Brits "over there" as long as there are Brits to fight in Iraq?

Or are they allowed to perform terrorists acts in Britain now because the numbers of British troops in Iraq have gotten so low.

We'd better make note of the minimum number of troops we need to keep in Iraq so the terrorists won't "follow us back here."

/sarcasm

Posted by: cowalker on June 29, 2007 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

shortstop: "shortly after Bush took office." Eight months is a good chunk of a four-year term (and would that it had only been one term...).


not too mention having a p.d.b. titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike Inside the United States"..

read to you...

the reaction from the commander in chief?

"All right. You've covered your ass, now."

there's leadership...

Posted by: mr. irony on June 29, 2007 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

bad news for Bush on Guantanamo--

Friday, June 29, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court, reversing course, agreed Friday to review whether Guantanamo Bay detainees may go to federal court to challenge their indefinite confinement.

The action, announced without comment along with other end-of-term orders, is a setback for the Bush administration. It had argued that a new law strips courts of their jurisdiction to hear detainee cases.

In April, the court turned down an identical request, although several justices indicated they could be persuaded otherwise.

The move is highly unusual.

The court did not indicate what changed the justices' minds about considering the issue. But last week, lawyers for the detainees filed a statement from a military lawyer in which he described the inadequacy of the process the administration has put forward as an alternative to a full-blown review by civilian courts.

"This is a stunning victory for the detainees," said Eric M. Freedman, professor of constitutional law at Hofstra Law School, who has been advising the detainees. "It goes well beyond what we asked for, and clearly indicates the unease up there" at the Supreme Court.

Posted by: haha on June 29, 2007 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

The crucial difference between London and the typical American city, of course, is that in London one can find a place called the Queen's Larder Pub in which it is permissible to drink a morning pint of ale with your friends because it's considered civilized behavior.

Posted by: dcbob on June 29, 2007 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

As others have mentioned, the most annoying aspect of this story is the reaction of our beloved 24 hr news channels. Whenever there's a whiff of terrorism anywhere in the West, they go into full-out hysteria mode, "Next, we'll find out if this could happen here." You'd think a pregnant white woman was missing or something.

Posted by: dfmi on June 29, 2007 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

How convenient another "terrorism" news item is strategically released to deflect attention away from Bush admin's low poll ratings, failure in Iraq, failure in Afghanistan, Immigration Bill, high gasoline prices, global warming, resegregation of the public schools, Halliburton!?

Everyone already knows that Bush is a failure. Nothing is going to change that.

Posted by: haha on June 29, 2007 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

ff: to deflect attention away from Bush admin's low poll ratings, failure in Iraq, failure in Afghanistan, Immigration Bill, high gasoline prices, global warming, resegregation of the public schools, Halliburton!?

you left out getting a bunch of subpoena's...

i know...

its hard work to keep up...

Posted by: mr. irony on June 29, 2007 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Those damn Scottish separatists...

Posted by: Red State Vol on June 29, 2007 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Senior police and Whitehall sources today said the failed attempt to inflict mass murder in central London was the work of al-Qaida or those inspired by its ideology.
....
The device was described by counter-terrorism sources as similar to car bombs used in Iraq.
....
Witnesses said they had seen the light metallic green saloon car being driven erratically earlier. It then crashed into bins before the driver ran away.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2114961,00.html

George Bush is losing a war to the most inept bunch of mother******s since the gang who couldn't shoot straight.

Maybe their destructive powers fade the further they get from their homeland in the Middle East.

Posted by: Nick on June 29, 2007 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Some how I don't see who ever is responsible for this failed attack as being any more competent than the guys who wanted to blow up Kennedy. The only difference is that law enforcement in London didn't get lucky until after the incompetents made their effort.

So is that the new measure of whether a terrorist attack is real? There has to be a solid attempt before any conspiracy can be considered "real"?

Sounds like a game of Russian roulette. Eventually even the most incompetent would-be-terrorist will slip past law enforcement and manage to do some damage. Better to stop anyone planning this kind of attack, no matter how foolish they may look. Eventually someone like that will get luck. It's the law of averages, after all.

Posted by: Strick on June 29, 2007 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Those damn Scottish separatists...

just wait until the Welsh start flexing their muscle..

Posted by: haha on June 29, 2007 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, they got lucky. There's a lot of luck involved in police work. But you make your own luck by having effective intelligence, international cooperation, competent leadership, adequate resources, etc.

If the Bush administration has done to the Federal law enforcement community what they did to FEMA, God help us.

And in any case, ill-conceived wars like Iraq never thwarted a single terrorist act. Quite the contrary, they create a whole new generation of injured parties with a grudge against us.

Posted by: Virginia Dutch on June 29, 2007 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

So is that the new measure of whether a terrorist attack is real? There has to be a solid attempt before any conspiracy can be considered "real"?
.....
Posted by: Strick on June 29, 2007 at 11:19 AM |
-------------------

50,000 Americans die each year in automobile accidents, and about another 50,000 die by gun fire.

Al-Qaeda has averaged about 500 American dead over the past six years.

Granted, sooner or later terrorists will get ahold of a biological weapon, or possibly a nuke, and kill hundreds of thousands. That's inevitable.

But every decade we lose a million people to handguns and automobiles.

Posted by: Nick on June 29, 2007 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

Strick - Difference is, the Kennedy bombers, just like those who had plotted to bomb the PATH tunnels, showed a willingness to do something...but a starkly misguided mindset of how effective their plots would have been and the damage their plans actually would have done. It calls into the question of competence, scale, and whether or not they were even anywhere near a genuine threat at the moment they were puffed up as a 'great victory against terrorism'.

THis bomb, while simple, was also meant to be rather straightforward and effective in its goal - blow up near a lot of people and kill them. it's a lot more straightforward, less convoluted sort of terrorism, and the kind you're more likely to see actually happen rather than those complex and often misguided plots like those that were trumpted stateside.

Posted by: Kryptik on June 29, 2007 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

Shorten Kevin Drum: "Terrorism? What me, worry?

This Congress is going to learn that it underestimated George W. Bush.

Posted by: egbert on June 29, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

The station cited witnesses as saying doormen from a nearby nightclub had reported that someone had crashed a Mercedes sedan into garbage bins and ran away.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6745476,00.html

Hey, watch me, clever jihadist, crash my Mercedes in the view of nightclub doormen and run away.

This seems like Captain Amazing in 'Mystery Men'--we need better villains.

Posted by: Nick on June 29, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Virginia Dutch - So true. I actually wish all this was handled more like law enforcement than some existential war. Treating it like war not only tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it also belies a mindset of 'war isn't the first option, it's the only option' that seems to be borne from the simpleminded approach of force this administration has. Shotgun diplomacy, if you will.

Nick - Thanks for the scale. It's figures like that which helps me keep the terrorism hysteria in context (and which is why the whole fear of it Americans have is so overblown and overprioritized).

Posted by: Kryptik on June 29, 2007 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

"Al-Qaeda has averaged about 500 American dead over the past six years. "

So, let me get this straight. Dying to terrorist attacks is no big deal, but soldiers dying at about the same rate in the past 6 years in a war to fight the terrorists is an outrage?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on June 29, 2007 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Shorten Kevin Drum: "Terrorism? What me, worry?

Shorter egbert: "Mommy, there's a terrorist in my closet!!"

Perspective, my dear troll. Terrorism is a genuine threat. It's just that we hold it up as such a boogeyman here that we tend to screw up all methods of actually fighting it EFFECTIVELY.

Mindless, crippling fear of terrorism is no substitute for rational response.

Posted by: Kryptik on June 29, 2007 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

No copernicus, you have no reason to be concerned. These are extremely rare events. That's what makes them newsworthy. The dozens of people who died yesterday in Iraq aren't what's leading--because that happens every day. If, on the other hand, a pipe bomb in sharm-el-sheik killed the same number yesterday, that would be a big story.

So, no, you do not want stories like this to affect the way you and an 11 year old face the world's dangers. Terrorism is a very rare, completely random threat. It doesn't do any good to worry about it, and you certainly shouldn't change anything you do in response to it.

Earlier this week, Jon Stewart had a segment on dangers at the beach. Turns out about five times as many people over some number of years have been killed in sand accidents have been killed in shark incidents.

Posted by: jayackroyd on June 29, 2007 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, watch me, clever jihadist, crash my Mercedes in the view of nightclub doormen and run away.
Posted by: Nick

It's called a failed suicide bombing. Crash into building or close to it, push the button, get a fizzle that fills car with smoke instead of blowing up, run away.

That's my prediction on what they figure out happened.

Posted by: Red State Vol on June 29, 2007 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Those damn Scottish separatists...

Apparently some people are not aware that Britain has faced terrorists bombings from the IRA for decades.

Posted by: Disputo on June 29, 2007 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

sand accidents

?

Posted by: Disputo on June 29, 2007 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

"Perspective, my dear troll. Terrorism is a genuine threat. It's just that we hold it up as such a boogeyman here that we tend to screw up all methods of actually fighting it EFFECTIVELY."

So far I haven't heard any method from the left other than: please don't anger those who want to kill us any more...

Posted by: Freedom fighter on June 29, 2007 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

Catholic Irish terrorists have killed more English than any jihadis.

Posted by: Brojo on June 29, 2007 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Clinton got “lucky” with the millennium plot because he was “shaking the tree’. Federal agencies were aware something was up, and when a customs inspector in Port Angeles, WA, got lucky and saw something, she acted. Bush got unlucky with 911 because he was asleep at the switch, dismissing a CIA representatives’ warning with the words “OK, you’ve covered your ass”.

It’s troubling how the political fortunes of the right wingers and Al Qaeda are linked together. They both use each other to rev up support among their base. The key to making it work is keeping us scared. Al Qaeda can hurt us, but the only way they can defeat us is to make us so fearful we abandon our principles.

Posted by: fafner1 on June 29, 2007 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Shorter egbert:

I'm so stupid I can't even figure out who writes these posts.

Posted by: DR on June 29, 2007 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

So al Qaeda can't manage to get a hundred pounds of plastic explosives into Britain to build a proper car bomb?

Tons of drugs are smuggled through Europe every day, so how hard can it be to get a hundred pounds of plastic explosives across the Mediterranean to France to Britain?

Ferrys cross from Morocco to Spain regularly, and mother******s SWIM the English Channel.

Yet we are supposed to fear the mighty al Qaeda which can't get a few pounds of plastic exposives in SIX YEARS into London to build a car bomb.

That's not just inept; that's pathetic. We need better villains to justify spending a trillion dollars fighting them.

Posted by: Nick on June 29, 2007 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Disputo - COllapsing sand holes and such causing people to suffocate and such. Strange, huh? But then again, the numbers on shark attacks were always pretty low, this just gives better perspective on HOW low.

Freedom Fighter - I dunno. Stop treating it like it's a monolithic threat that only an army can solve? Law enforcement methods that actually can track and arrest culprits or plotters without having to trumpet them as some great massive victory (yes, the Brooklyn Plotters, the would-be Kennedy bombers, and the guys targeting the PATH, if they genuinely planned all this should be arrested. But trumpeting them as some great victory tends to be disingeuous and does little more than say 'see! We have terrorists! FEAR THE TERRORISTS!').

My suggestions are hardly perfect, but you don't need to have an immediate suggestion for a new course to say that the current course is ridiculously broken and counterintuitive to your actual goals.

Posted by: Kryptik on June 29, 2007 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK
So far I haven't heard any method from the left other than: please don't anger those who want to kill us any more...
Maybe if you hadn't spent all that time with your fingers in your ears, wailing "La La La - BDS - I can't hear you" ...

Just sayin'.

Posted by: kenga on June 29, 2007 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

While I am loathing of ad nauseum coverage and hyped news as anyone, I think the attempt to murder, what, 100-200+ plus civilians in a clip is a little deserving of coverage, and deserving of concern.

I don't need to be in London, or be a Brit, to be horrified at how close many of them came to being blown to pieces. Especially since it is part and parcel of the ongoing war extremists are waging against civilians.

Yes, people can take it in stride when an event happens. But acting like it was no big deal that this attack nearly came off is depraved.

WG

Posted by: Weary G on June 29, 2007 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

When the US murders civilians, which happens on a daily basis, the Hysterical do not think press coverage is deserved. On the contrary, the Hysterical think press coverage of their crimes against civilians is negative reporting.

Posted by: Brojo on June 29, 2007 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

It's a small world now, and an event "that didn't happen thousands of miles away" can be closer than Atrios thinks. He would have a hard time convincing my wife that she shouldn't be concerned about it.

I'm sure he would, but that doesn't mean your wife is right. We tend to wildly overestimate unusual dangers like a terrorist attack, especially when they involve family members, while wildly underestimating more familiar dangers. Your wife would do better to be concerned every time your son rides in a car back home than to worry about him being hurt by a car bomb.

Posted by: Stefan on June 29, 2007 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

From one comment on the Times of London comment board:

"Yes it could have been Islamic terrorists who carried out this failed attack, but why has noone mentioned the CIA or Mossad, or even MI5?"

Because we're not all paranoid delusionals, perhaps?


Posted by: Ray Waldren on June 29, 2007 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Wg-

yes, it is an awful thing. People were almost murdered in a foreign capital that looks a lot like ours. Of course, 7 people have been successfully murdered in OUR capital this week, probably 100 people will be murdered in the US this weekend, and 500 will be killed by reckless and or drunk drivers through the holiday. And there are car bombs like this that are successful several times a week in Baghdad. Everytime someone is murdered or killed it is a trgedy for the human race, let's keep some perspective.

oh, and why is it the wing nuts see gun violence as a need for more guns, car accidents as a need for more roads, but terrorist plots as a need for fewer rights? Does this really make sense?

Posted by: Northzax on June 29, 2007 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Wg-

"yes, it is an awful thing. People were almost murdered in a foreign capital that looks a lot like ours. Of course, 7 people have been successfully murdered in OUR capital this week, probably 100 people will be murdered in the US this weekend, and 500 will be killed by reckless and or drunk drivers through the holiday. And there are car bombs like this that are successful several times a week in Baghdad. Everytime someone is murdered or killed it is a trgedy for the human race, let's keep some perspective."

I have plenty of perspective, which is why I fully support the jailing of and/or revocation of licenses for drunk drivers, and the incarceration of those that murder people.

I am not sure why perspective also requires lack of compassion or concern. I think the car bombs going off in Baghdad are monstrous, and I curse the terrorist bastards who set them off.

"oh, and why is it the wing nuts see gun violence as a need for more guns, car accidents as a need for more roads, but terrorist plots as a need for fewer rights? Does this really make sense?"

Not sure what your point is. Who is calling for less rights? I may have missed it in the thread.

WG

Posted by: Weary G on June 29, 2007 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Last week someone sort of accidentally on purpose blew up the New Jersey Gaming Commission in Atlantic City.

English lightning, I think they called it.

Posted by: cld on June 29, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

"When the US murders civilians, which happens on a daily basis,"

Where is that?

WG

Posted by: Weary G on June 29, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Bush will demonstrate to Congress that they can't possibly underestimate him enough to match reality.

Posted by: smegmabert on June 29, 2007 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

So far I haven't heard any method from the left other than: please don't anger those who want to kill us any more...

How about this quote from Pat Lang, hardly a member of "The Left": "The takfiri jihadis ARE a menace, but they are a menace best dealt with by stealth and guile."

Posted by: JM on June 29, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

. . . I think the attempt to murder, what, 100-200+ plus civilians in a clip is a little deserving of coverage, and deserving of concern.
Posted by: Weary G on June 29, 2007 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Right you are.

Too bad that this nearly daily occurrance (the murder of 100-200+ civilians) in IRAQ, does not appear to be deserving of coverage or concern.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on June 29, 2007 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

this:

Actually, that would be a loony bin nutcase truther moron who also thinks the moon landings were faked.

and this:

Because we're not all paranoid delusionals, perhaps?

It's quite amazing that within days of the declassification of the "Family Jewels" wingnutters are blithely dismissing suggestions of a false flag op as "delusional" and "loony bin" conspiracy theories.

Some people combine ignorance and shamelessness to create a whole new flavor of irony.

Posted by: Disputo on June 29, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

How about this quote from Pat Lang, hardly a member of "The Left": "The takfiri jihadis ARE a menace, but they are a menace best dealt with by stealth and guile."
Posted by: JM

Gee, do you think there's any steathing and guiling going on? How would you know if you weren't part of the inside team? Hint: there's a lot going on.

Too bad that this nearly daily occurrance (the murder of 100-200+ civilians) in IRAQ, does not appear to be deserving of coverage or concern.
Posted by: osama_been_forgotten

Amen. What AQI and the JAM do to people in Iraq, which usually involves torture before the murder, gets a big pass.

Posted by: Red State Vol on June 29, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

I have plenty of perspective, which is why I fully support the jailing of and/or revocation of licenses for drunk drivers, and the incarceration of those that murder people.
Posted by: Weary G on June 29, 2007 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

. . . and isn't it tragic that GW Bush didn't even get a SUSPENSION for his multiple DUIs. I guess some peoples parents just have more pull than others.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on June 29, 2007 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

I fully support ... the incarceration of those that murder people.

Like the Marines who killed those men, women and children in Haditha?

Like the officers and pilots in Afghanistan who drop bombs on civilians?

Like the officers and seamen who shot down that Iranian jet liner?

Posted by: Brojo on June 29, 2007 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

"Where is that?"

Don't you listen to Rosie? Our war mongering boys have murdered 650,000 Iraqi women and children.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on June 29, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

"and isn't it tragic that GW Bush didn't even get a SUSPENSION for his multiple DUIs. I guess some peoples parents just have more pull than others."

Apparently not as much pull as the Kennedys...

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on June 29, 2007 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

"So far I haven't heard any method from the left other than: please don't anger those who want to kill us any more..."

How about this: Let's have good intelligence, effective port security, good international cooperation, better Arabic language skills, and leadership that doesn't try to politicize or privatize every aspect of the Federal government. Then maybe we might take the threat seriously enough to prevent the next 9/11.

And while we're at it- yes, let's not anger people unnecessarily. Then there just might be fewer people who want to kill us, giving us a better chance to stop the ones who do.

Posted by: Vriginia Dutch on June 29, 2007 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Amen. What AQI and the JAM do to people in Iraq, which usually involves torture before the murder, gets a big pass.
Posted by: Red State Vol on June 29, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, and what really gets me, as I was watching Colin Powell's "interview" on LKL this morning; they just don't give a crap. This Administration was WARNED by "shrill, crazy, leftist, hate-america-first liberals" that we should not invade Iraq, and especially not without enough troops to SECURE Iraq.

"Oh no" we were told, "we'll be fine, this is MODERN warfare, we've got computers and smart bombs, and satellites now - this will be nothing like Viet Nam. . . "

It was called the fucking "Powell Doctrine". And it succeeded in the first Gulf War. It was ignored in the second.

Some people would like to believe that it was just incompetence. Because they are too chicken-shit to see the truth. That it was pure MALICE.

To ignore the deaths in Iraq - and to refuse to accept responsibility for them, is MALICE.

When you INVADE a country, and destroy it's government, and public safety infrastructure - YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PEOPLE'S SAFETY.

If you TAKE CONTROL - then you are responsible for maintaining that control.

Bush abandoned that responsibility, and his enablers and supporters give him a free pass. Out of malice.

Nobody's saying that the murders and bombers over there aren't evil. Nobody is saying that their actions, and especially their methods, are not evil. But when we have a choice to either stop them, or let them bomb and kill, and we CHOOSE to allow this stuff to happen - then WE, who made that choice, are just as evil.

And WE made that choice, when we put Bush and Rumsfeld in charge, and we let them sell us this stupid idea of a quick-n-cheap war (which turned out to be not-so-cheap, and not-so-quick).

IRAQI civil safety is OUR responsibility.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on June 29, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently not as much pull as the Kennedys...
Posted by: Freedom Fighter on June 29, 2007 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK


Oh yeah, I forgot. Kennedy did it, so that makes it okay for Bush.

Thank GOD Clinton cleared the way for Bush to get a blowjob in the oval office. Good thing Jeff Gannon swallows, otherwise there'd be a blue spandex tank top waiting in someone's closet. . .

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on June 29, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

WE, who made that choice, are just as evil.

While watching Gandhi last night, I could not help but notice the parallels between the US occupation of Iraq and the English occupation of India. Gandhi called the British rule evil, and the British tried to claim their presence was required in order to prevent sectarian violence. The wheel of human existence turns endlessly.

Posted by: Brojo on June 29, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, OBF, that tripe about "personal responsibility" is so pre-9/11. The notion that an occupying power is responsible for maintaining civil order went the way of the long obsolete Geneva Convention. The new rule is that if an invading army is not greeted with flowers and free sex, that they get to plunder the country of all its most valuable resources. That is part of the Bush Doctrine. Look it up.

Posted by: Disputo on June 29, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

IRAQI civil safety is OUR responsibility.
Posted by: osama_been_forgotten

Without opening up the can of worms arguing your point, explain to me how you reconcile the drive to leave Iraq with that sentence.

Posted by: Red State Vol on June 29, 2007 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

"Like the Marines who killed those men, women and children in Haditha?"

Yes, if they did what you accuse them of doing. Of course, they get a trial, and if it turns out they did not do what they are accused of, you will of course admit that openly, and apologize.

"Like the officers and pilots in Afghanistan who drop bombs on civilians?"

If shown they targeted those civilians, rather than hit them accidently or inintentionally as part of a war. Or did American, British, Canadian and Free French troops commit murder when they liberated France and accidently hit civilians while liberating the country?

"Like the officers and seamen who shot down that Iranian jet liner?"

It was an accident, or do you really think the officers and seamen said, "Oh, look, an civilian airliner. Let's take it out!"

WG


Posted by: weary G on June 29, 2007 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

In reading the accounts of the bomb they repeatedly mention cans of gasoline but there is no mention of an oxidant. This could be simply a lack of information. On the other hand, if there was only gasoline and nails and propane that would not constitute a bomb. It would cause a heck of a fire but it would not explode. Perhaps there was something else in the car (nitrate fertilizer?) that functioned as the oxidizer and this detail hasn't been published.

Posted by: JohnK on June 29, 2007 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

"Hearty bunch, those Brits."

You mean pathetic bunch of brainless twits, those Americans.
I can think of no other country on earth that is as hysterical about terrorism as the US.

Posted by: Maynard Handley on June 29, 2007 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

"Right you are.

Too bad that this nearly daily occurrance (the murder of 100-200+ civilians) in IRAQ, does not appear to be deserving of coverage or concern."

The press covers every single car bomb and mosque attack that occurs in Baghdad, so I have no idea what you mean.

WG

Posted by: weary G on June 29, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, people can take it in stride when an event happens. But acting like it was no big deal that this attack nearly came off is depraved.

Bill O'Reilly disagrees with you there:

From the June 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

Now the latest NBC News indignity is trying to convince their few viewers that Fox News is negligent because we don't cover every terrorist incident in Iraq...As everybody knows, Al Qaeda's strategy is to break the will of the American people to fight the jihad. Osama bin Laden has stated that in writing. So blowing things up and hopefully getting the carnage on TV is what the terrorists want.

From the June 12 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

Look, if you did that in World War II or even in Vietnam, the people would have been so horrified that the war would have been a different situation. People's capacity to absorb other people's pain is limited, and on a big thing, yes. But every day, the same thing; here's another explosion. There's no news value to it, Colonel. There's just no news value to it. Just trust me on this.

Posted by: Stefan on June 29, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

On the other hand, if there was only gasoline and nails and propane that would not constitute a bomb.

A propane canister goes off in a pretty spectacular conflagration. My parent's neighbor's house was blown up when their canister cooked off.

Bill O'Reilly disagrees with you there:
Posted by: Stefan

Glad to see you agreeing with Bill O'Reilly. But try to keep it short and pithy.

Posted by: RSV on June 29, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

"Oh yeah, I forgot. Kennedy did it, so that makes it okay for Bush."

LOL, you complain about Bush's traffic violations, while staying mute in regards to Kennedys' murders. I am not arguing what is and isn't ok, just pointing out what a bunch of hypocrites you guys are.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on June 29, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

The undetonated car bomb was probably a CIA plant to fuck with Brown, who is going to withdraw British troops from Iraq and start to question Britain's attachment to the Bush regime. This was a warning to Brown, not from any jihadis, but from Bush and his neo-con pals not to turn his back on their quest for domination.

Posted by: Brojo on June 29, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

The undetonated car bomb was probably a CIA plant to fuck with Brown...
Posted by: Brojo

You're scaring me, Brojo. I almost believe you are being sincere.

Posted by: Red State V on June 29, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

"As others have mentioned, the most annoying aspect of this story is the reaction of our beloved 24 hr news channels. Whenever there's a whiff of terrorism anywhere in the West, they go into full-out hysteria mode, "Next, we'll find out if this could happen here." You'd think a pregnant white woman was missing or something."
Posted by: dfmi on June 29, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Yes, the 24 hr cable news, let's repeat the story againandagainandagain channels are not much more than a flock of pigeons descending on a burst 100-lb. bag of pet food.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on June 29, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

How about we get some facts and put a stop to all of this fearmongering?

This was a joke as far as attacks go--it was not what is was initially made out to be. There was no where near the lethality initially guessed at--something like fifty gallons of gas and some nails? Sorry, that's not going to cause a whole lot of damage. A nice fireball, yes. But let's not talk about this as if it were fifty pounds of Semtex

Please. This was not a competent attempt at using a bomb at all. This was amateur hour, and the British cops did a good job of shutting it down.

Posted by: Some Perspective For You on June 29, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

In the 6 years since 3,000 people died on 9/11, nearly 300,000 Americans have died as a result of gun violence, and about another 300,000 died in traffice accidents.

That means that over the past 6 years, we each have been 100 times more likely to die from gunshot wounds or from traffic accidents than from terrorist attacks.

Posted by: Nick on June 29, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, any accusation of who placed such an incompetently assembled 'bomb' device is pure speculation, but my accusation that it was the CIA's intention to interfere with British domestic politics is just as legitimate as anyone else's with the information available.

Posted by: Brojo on June 29, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Correction:

About 30,000 people a year die from gunshot violence in the U.S.

That means over the past 6 years we each were only 60 times more likely to die from gunshot violence than a terrorist attack.

My bad.

Posted by: Nick on June 29, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

LONDON, England (CNN) -- A second car found on a London street on Friday contained possible bomb materials, sources told CNN, hours after police disarmed an explosives-filled car in the city's busy theater district.

The second car was towed from Trafalgar Square to Park Lane overnight, because it was illegally parked, the sources said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/06/29/london.alert/index.html

We are spending all this money, effort and energy fighting f*****s too stupid to park their suicide bomb cars where they won't be towed away?

Apparently the 19 Muslims (out of 1.5 billion) capable of anything like intelligent action died on 9/11.

Posted by: Nick on June 29, 2007 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

Without opening up the can of worms arguing your point, explain to me how you reconcile the drive to leave Iraq with that sentence.

What is it about "the responsibilities of an occupying power" that you don't understand?

Posted by: Disputo on June 29, 2007 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

You can measure the intensity of Bush's downward spiral by the multiplying handles employed by Red State Mike and MatthewRMarler. Hey, I'd be embarrassed, too.

Repack Rider cracked me up with: This is gonna cost me another constitutional right.

Posted by: shortstop on June 29, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

A second car found on a London street on Friday contained possible bomb materials

I love the hysteria here. "[P]ossible bomb materials"?! Shit, *my* car contains "possible bomb materials". So does my kitchen.

Posted by: Disputo on June 29, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

What is it about "the responsibilities of an occupying power" that you don't understand?
Posted by: Disputo

OK, so you're arguing we should stay until it is safe for the Iraqis?

Posted by: Red State V on June 29, 2007 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Repack Rider cracked me up with: This is gonna cost me another constitutional right.

So long as Bush stays away from the right to download inet porn, he's golden.

Posted by: Disputo on June 29, 2007 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

London Bomb--What a Crock of Crap!!

by L C Johnson

You know what you call a vehicle with 50 gallons of gas? A Cadillac Escalade.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/29/11274/0754

ROFLMAO.

Posted by: Nick on June 29, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

OK, so you're arguing we should stay until it is safe for the Iraqis?

No, I'm saying you need to read the GC.

Posted by: Disputo on June 29, 2007 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

No, I'm saying you need to read the GC.
Posted by: Disputo

Your statement that we have to ensure the safety of the Iraqis conflicts with your desire to get out of Iraq sooner rather than later. How do you resolve it?

Posted by: Red State V on June 29, 2007 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Bill O'Reilly disagrees with you there: Posted by: Stefan

Glad to see you agreeing with Bill O'Reilly.

Hmmm...amazing, the wingnut mind, which takes me quoting something by Falafel Guy, without comment, to mean that I'm agreeing with it....

Posted by: Stefan on June 29, 2007 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm...amazing, the wingnut mind, which takes me quoting something by Falafel Guy, without comment, to mean that I'm agreeing with it...

Hmmm...amazing, the moonbat mind, thinking that Bill O'Reilly's opinion had some sort of bearing on G's post in the first place.

Posted by: Red State V on June 29, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Your statement that we have to ensure the safety of the Iraqis conflicts with your desire to get out of Iraq sooner rather than later.

That's not my statement. That comes from the GC. Again, I suggest you read it.

Posted by: Disputo on June 29, 2007 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

That's not my statement. That comes from the GC. Again, I suggest you read it.
Posted by: Disputo

Been there and read that. Stop dodging the question...how do you reconcile your desire to leave Iraq ASAP with our obligations under the GC to safeguard the populace? Are you suggesting we ignore the GC in this case?

Posted by: Red State V on June 29, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Nothing to worry about. JUst a harmless prank. Larry Johnson is joking it's just gasoline starter, propane and nails. The second one was in parking violation. Plus they may be IRA. Atrios is also calm and Repack Rider is cool with it. What, me worry?

Posted by: daveinboca on June 29, 2007 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

how do you reconcile your desire to leave Iraq ASAP with our obligations under the GC to safeguard the populace? Are you suggesting we ignore the GC in this case?

Posted by: Red State V on June 29, 2007 at 3:44 PM
----------------------
First, since we didn't worry about the Geneva Conventions or our treaties with the United Nations in the first place, now is a bit of an odd time to start being concerned with them.

Second, if we are going to comply with the Geneva Conventions (and I think we should--that we have a responsibility) we are going to need another 300,000 boots on the ground. Bush needs to rouse his party and initiate a draft.

Of course, that will never happen. We went to war with mercenaries and too few troops because Bush knew he couldn't sell a draft to the public.

As a result, if we're not going to do it right, we might as well get out, since what we're doing isn't helping, and it probably is exacerbating the situation.

Posted by: Nick on June 29, 2007 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK
how do you reconcile your desire to leave Iraq ASAP with our obligations under the GC to safeguard the populace? Red State F at 3:44 PM
According to the law, it applies to the 'occupying power.' Once the US leaves, it is no longer the occupying power and the Iraq government is in charge. Remember the Iraq government? It was all the rage with Bushistas a short while ago.

For all other people, a warning for the upcoming 4th of July. Be careful transporting that tank of propane for your barbeque: HomeLandSecurity could determine that it's a terrorist boombomb. Keep your head down.
Jes sayin'

Posted by: Mike on June 29, 2007 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Just wondering:
At least one of the cars was parked illegally, towed, and that aided in discovering it (and presumably would reduce the damage had it exploded.)
So, why would a terrorist be dumb enough to illegally park the vehicle, if he really cared about the results?

Posted by: Neil B. on June 29, 2007 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

how do you reconcile your desire to leave Iraq ASAP with our obligations under the GC to safeguard the populace? Red State F at 3:44 PM
According to the law, it applies to the 'occupying power.' Once the US leaves, it is no longer the occupying power and the Iraq government is in charge. Remember the Iraq government? It was all the rage with Bushistas a short while ago.
For all other people, a warning for the upcoming 4th of July. Be careful transporting that tank of propane for your barbeque: HomeLandSecurity could determine that it's a terrorist boombomb. Keep your head down.
Jes sayin'

Posted by: Mike on June 29, 2007 at 5:54 PM
----------------

Actually, the Geneva Conventions require that as the invader we secure the citizenry. This is another GC violation for Bush and Rumsfeld.

Shinseki explained that we needed about 450,000 troops according to settled military doctrine. They blew him off and went in against military advice, and now Iraq is in flames as a result.

It's another crime. Still, it's amusing how suddenly the wingers care about the Geneva Conventions.

Posted by: Nick on June 29, 2007 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

I just walked past the living room.

NBC news seems to be carrying on as if England has just been invaded, "Now we shift our attention back across the Atlantic to see what's being done here in response to the situation in London. . ."

It must make them feel like they're doing something.

Posted by: cld on June 29, 2007 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

It just strains my power of belief, that bombers or suicide bombers as were now told, people of strong conviction, could be so incompetent.
One explanation:
Somebody's paid off some common criminals who were only in it for the money.

Posted by: slanted tom on June 29, 2007 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

What Mike and Nick said. Thx.

Posted by: Disputo on June 29, 2007 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

Look, over there thousands of miles away! There was almost a bombing!

The GOP is still the pansy party.


Posted by: Gary on June 30, 2007 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

You have a better chance of winning the lotto than you do of being killed by a terrosits attack. That's not to discount the risks of terrorism, rather to simply put it into context.

Posted by: William Jensen on June 30, 2007 at 2:29 AM | PERMALINK

Let's stay open about who is behind these attempted bombings. Remember Tim McVeigh.

al Qaeda doesn't leave cars emitting smoke on the streets or cars that reek of gasoline. This was the work of amateurs.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on June 30, 2007 at 4:53 AM | PERMALINK

Steve

Can we drop the 'plucky Britain' stuff?

I lived through 7/7/5. I had family close to the bombs who I couldn't reach for hours (they were fine). The phones (land as well as mobile, texting) went down.

What people were on 7/7/5 was shocked. I saw some very immature emotional reactions (as I did on 9-11: when told that her company had offices in WTC, a young lady said to me 'those are all [] people' where [household name] was the name of a company they had taken over (hint: both household names). Then she laughed.)

People aren't any more phlegmatic here than they are in Paris or Tel Aviv, or probably Baghdad or Beirut. I had friends with Israeli bombs hitting their streets in Beirut emailing me to tell me that 'it's OK, so far'.

The British media loved this, but people were shaken up. 'Spirit of the Blitz' wasn't.

They've found a second bomb by the way. People will be shaken by this.

Posted by: Valuethinker on June 30, 2007 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

pj

They've convicted several islamicists with very similar plans in the last few months.

This was almost certainly an islamic terror group. You can rule out anyone else, pretty much. Not the IRA's style, for example.

Posted by: Valuethinker on June 30, 2007 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

Valuethinker,

You are correct, it was the work of Islamicists.

They seem to have been poorly trained in their murderous trade. It would be interesting to find out why. Are arrests of terror suspects disrupting the leadership? Are their usual supplies (fuses, cannisters, cell phones, etc.) more difficult to come by?

Congrats to the Brits for being so vigilant. Sounds like clubs are an ongoing target, just like in Bali.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on July 1, 2007 at 6:33 AM | PERMALINK

william jensen: You have a better chance of winning the lotto than you do of being killed by a terrosits attack. That's not to discount the risks of terrorism, rather to simply put it into context.


screw context...

Posted by: bin laden & rove on July 1, 2007 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

pj

The people who have been training in Pakistan and in Iraq just haven't made it to the UK yet. Our terrorism is home grown, but many of our people have been out there. The problem with Iraq is we have created the perfect urban guerilla training programme for our enemies, as well as a casus belli for disaffected moslem youth here.

If a psycopath with home chemistry could build lethal nailbombs to blow up a gay pub and kill 7 people (The Admiral Duncan on Brewer Street) then these terrorists can catch up.

The IRA was this amateurish in the beginning. By the 1990s, their terror campaigns were models of technological and military sophistication, with exquisitely weighed amounts of pain and damage to achieve their political ends.

Give this lot time. They'll get better.

Posted by: Valuethinker on July 2, 2007 at 3:59 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly