Car bombs come to London
Two car bombs in central London. Neither goes off, although it appears that both were aimed at night club revellers as they made their way home, giving one the distinct impression that some sort of moral judgement was being made against a western lifestyle choice.
It was a busy night at Tiger Tiger, the Piccadilly bar and nightclub just refurbished in the "funky era" style of the 70s complete with disco balls and lava lamps. Thursday night - "ladies' night" - is one of the most popular for the clientele of Londoners and tourists in their 20s and 30s happy to pay a £5 cover charge and order jugs of Sex on the Beach and Mojito cocktails as they listen to music and dance.I presume the plan was to blow up "immoral" revellers as they made their drunken way home. The story has made front page news across Britain, despite the fact that the bombs failed to activate. The fear is that the kind of car bomb attacks that currently afflict Baghdad are now on their way to London.
In the early hours of yesterday, one guest suffered a minor head injury after a fall. An ambulance was called shortly after 1.25am to the club in Haymarket, just round the corner from Piccadilly Circus. Tiger Tiger, which can hold up to 1,700 people, was still crowded and there were hundreds of people on nearby streets heading home from other bars and clubs.
As they tended their patient, the crew from the London Ambulance Service noticed a grey-green Mercedes saloon with what appeared to be smoke inside.
What they saw was probably vapour from petrol which, along with nails and gas canisters, made up the device. The crew told its control room of their suspicions and control contacted the police. Bomb disposal experts, police vans and more ambulances were dispatched.
The whole of London yesterday continued to go on with it's day, almost unaffected by the events on Haymarket. And that, I feel, will continue to be the reaction no matter what the extremists do.Opinions among senior figures who talked to the Guardian ranged from hope that the attack was limited to the two car bombs, to a real fear that more attempts could be on the way. One was clear: "We are very worried. This was a deadly serious attempt." Another said: "We can only guess at the intent and scale [of the terrorists]. We are having to guess."
MI5 cancelled leave for its frontline staff and security was stepped up at "iconic targets", with uniformed police patrols also increased. Security plans for weekend events from Wimbledon to a Gay Pride march in London were under review.
I have no idea whether my reaction is typical of most Londoners, but my reaction is simply this: Fuck them.
The IRA bombed the British mainland for 37 years and they did not succeed in making any of us change our way of life, and nor will these buggers. And old phrase from World War II comes to mind: No war was ever won by bombing London.
London is like New York, it is a frame of mind as much as it is anything else. And no-one will make Londoners cow by bombing them. Nor is there any logic behind the plan to bomb the city where two million people marched in protest against the Iraq war. If any city in the world had shown it disapproved of it's government's plans in Iraq then this is surely that city.
And yet still some moronic al-Qaeda sympathisers planned to kill Londoners as they made their drunken way home.
The fact that the intelligence communities say that this attempt was "off the radar" only makes me more convinced that this is going to turn out to be the work of some home-grown fanatics, some soon-to-be-arrested deluded loons who actually believe that there is such a thing as the clash of civilisations. Some nutters who spends their time sitting in their bedrooms watching beheading videos and planning Jihad.The security services and police have been trying to increase the intelligence they have about extremists, but yesterday's attempts were "off the radar".
"There is no intelligence whatsoever that we were going to be attacked in this way," said the national counter-terrorism coordinator, deputy assistant commissioner Peter Clarke.
Were the evangelical Blair still sitting in Number Ten, he would no doubt tell us that this is why he had to invade Iraq, to prevent such mayhem from reaching our doorstep. It's another version of Bush's insane mantra that, "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here".
It's bull. There is a reason why they choose to attack us as opposed to Sweden or Scandinavia.
So I can reject my government's warped logic whilst, simultaneously, rejecting the warped logic of those who sought to kill Londoners. Whatever they had hoped to achieve by maiming and killing Londoners, they would not have succeeded. We are too spectacularly cynical to be changed by such crude attacks.
However, and much more importantly, the cause for the anger and hatred which causes lunatics to set out to kill and maim innocents remains our behaviour in the Middle East; our occupation of Iraq and the unresolved question of the State of Palestine.
Sort that out and much of this hatred will dissipate. Until that day, many of us will continue to feel as if we are caught in the middle, between two equally insane proponents of two equally insane ideologies, both of whom are convinced that they are right.
Click title for full article.
11 comments:
Great Britainistan needs to do something with its jihadi problem. Thank God the perpetrators of the most recent incidents appear to have been largely inept.
that some sort of moral judgement was being made against a western lifestyle choice.
Personally, I think that's giving them too much credit.
The IRA bombed the British mainland for 37 years
Brits seem to have this habit of comparing everything to the bombing of London during WW2 and their conflict with the IRA. Like those events are completely different from each other, this global conflict with radical islamism is completely different. Your opponents have different motivations and seek different goals. Quite honestly, they are far more dangerous and far more ambitious than the IRA ever was.
Nor is there any logic behind the plan to bomb the city where two million people marched in protest against the Iraq war.
I'm sure by their thinking it's plenty logical. What was the logic in 9/11? What was the logic in any of the countless terrorist acts islamics have committed prior to Iraq, Afghanistan, and 9/11? Many in Europe and the American left spend too much time trying to figure out what may be wrong with them that these people want to kill them, instead of focusing their efforts on what's wrong with the people who hold these views.
who actually believe that there is such a thing as the clash of civilisations.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "clash of civilizations". If you have a large group of people who seek to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Shari'a, then at least to them it's a clash of civilizations. I would think it would be worthwhile to take these people at their word and respond accordingly.
There is a reason why they choose to attack us as opposed to Sweden or Scandinavia.
Bad example, Sweden is having their own islamist problem. That said, they will certainly choose to attack people who stand against their goals. The British government stands against the islamists' goals, and is therefore a threat. The UK is also a tempting target because history has shown that bombing European cities has produced some desirable behavior. Your populations seem more willing to roll over and show them your stomachs. Many in Europe are blindly pacifist and many of the governments are weak. There is little evidence that Europe as a whole is willing to fight for anything, which certainly makes you all the more tempting a target I would think.
However, and much more importantly, the cause for the anger and hatred which causes lunatics to set out to kill and maim innocents remains our behaviour in the Middle East;
That's blaming the victim, again. The cause for the hatred is coming from warped societies, having twisted religious views, and having a victim complex that just won't quit. The West is merely the focus for that hatred and there will always be some cause du jour to get them stirred up. Hell, they're willing to kill people over a few cartoons for God's sakes.
Sort that out and much of this hatred will dissipate.
There is no indication that this is the case. We could surrender to them (as many, particularly in Europe are want to do) and meet all of their demands (whatever they are) tommorrow, and it would change nothing.
Your opponents have different motivations and seek different goals. Quite honestly, they are far more dangerous and far more ambitious than the IRA ever was.
In what way? The events in Glasgow last night and the cars found in London aren't even bombs, they are simply cars filled with petrol. And, with the exception of 9-11, nothing al-Qaeda have ever done exceeds the bog standard bombings of the IRA.
I'm sure by their thinking it's plenty logical. What was the logic in 9/11?
To remove the American presence from Saudi Arabia and to force the Americans to rethink their support for Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. At least that's what bin Laden said was the logic behind it.
If you have a large group of people who seek to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Shari'a, then at least to them it's a clash of civilizations.
The critical word you have used is large. There is no large group with that aim. There is a ragbag of nutters seeking to get others to join them. Our war in Iraq has helped bring some, but not many to their cause. We have, in effect, declared war on the Klu Klux Klan. We have inflated the importance of these nutters beyond belief. To call what should be a police action against these people a "war" only plays into their own inflated sense of importance.
The UK is also a tempting target because history has shown that bombing European cities has produced some desirable behavior. Your populations seem more willing to roll over and show them your stomachs.
If I remember correctly not a single bomb landed on American soil during WWII, so where do you get off with that analogy? Britain went through the Blitz and did not "roll over and show them your stomachs".
Many in Europe are blindly pacifist
More sweeping generalisations. For someone who often accuses others of "anti-Americanism" I detect a huge amount of anti-Europeanism in some of your assumptions and attitudes.
Sort that out and much of this hatred will dissipate.
There is no indication that this is the case.
Well that's certainly the belief of the British intelligence as articulated by both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Indeed, Blair has said that nothing will do more to tackle international terrorism and it's ability to recruit than sorting out the Israeli-Palestine problem.
I also note that you act as if they haven't made any demands. Perhaps the fact that you live in the US means you are unaware of them. For instance, I notice that when bin Laden made his latest set of demands that the New York Times published them in full, however, they cut out every single reference to Israel, which British newspapers did not. And the US has already complied with his first demand. There is no longer an American presence in Saudi Arabia.
In what way?
The IRA's goals were very clear. The IRA meeting those goals would not mean the end to your way of life. On the other hand, for the jihadis to attain their goals would mean the end of your way of life. You should read their varied list of demands, which include uniting the world under the umbrella of Islam, and many other nutty things which they deeply believe in. Their religious zealotry, ambition to kill innocents that far exceeded the IRA (who typically phoned in warnings), and goals that would supplant our way of life if achieved makes them far more dangerous.
The events in Glasgow last night and the cars found in London aren't even bombs, they are simply cars filled with petrol.
They were cars filled with gasoline, propane tanks, and nails. The intent was clearly to make car bombs. Obviously they have to go back to the drawing board. I have heard that the crudeness of the devices may have been because the materials were more readily obtainable without drawing suspicion to themselves.
And, with the exception of 9-11, nothing al-Qaeda have ever done exceeds the bog standard bombings of the IRA.
That's quite an astounding claim in this day and age and demonstrably not true. Approximately 60 civilians in total were killed in England during the various IRA bombings throughout the years. On the other hand, Al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of 202 in Madrid, 52 in London, 22 at Al-Khobar, 202 in Bali... The list goes on, and I haven't even touched on Al Qaeda in Iraq.
To remove the American presence from Saudi Arabia and to force the Americans to rethink their support for Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. At least that's what bin Laden said was the logic behind it.
Actually he said he wanted us removed from all Muslim lands, but no need to split hairs. He also had a whole litany of other irrational claims and demands, if you read both his original Fatwah and the later "Letter to American People" or whatever he called it. Having a reason doesn't bestow logic, which is my point that the "logic" behind attacking the US and attacking the UK was equally irrational by civilized standards.
The critical word you have used is large. There is no large group with that aim.
I guess you'd have to define "large", but just the fact that there are supposedly 2000 jihadis under surveillance in your own country is worth noting. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the countless other jihadi groups (al Qaeda inspired or otherwise), never mind their sympathizers (how many muslims in the UK think suicide bombings are justified according to a recent poll?) and other supporters, is quite a large number of people no matter how you slice it. We've likely killed thousands of these jihadis (not counting native insurgents) in Iraq and Afghanistan and there are no shortage of new volunteers.
We have inflated the importance of these nutters beyond belief. To call what should be a police action against these people a "war" only plays into their own inflated sense of importance.
I believe you dangerously underestimate things.
If I remember correctly not a single bomb landed on American soil during WWII
You remember incorrectly.
Britain went through the Blitz and did not "roll over and show them your stomachs".
Firstly, Britain is not all of Europe. Secondly, I think much has changed in our societies since the time of our grandparents. Thirdly, Spain did.
More sweeping generalisations.
You're right. I should have said Western Europe.
I detect a huge amount of anti-Europeanism
Europe is not a nation, race, or religion, so I'm not even sure if such a thing is possible.
Indeed, Blair has said that nothing will do more to tackle international terrorism and it's ability to recruit than sorting out the Israeli-Palestine problem.
He may have said that, but I merely state that I see nothing other than conjecture which could support such a statement. As the goals and grievances of the jihadis extends far beyond the palestinians, I kind of doubt it. Furthermore, I'm not sure if there is any realistic sorting out of the Palestinian-Israeli problem that would appease these people.
I also note that you act as if they haven't made any demands. Perhaps the fact that you live in the US means you are unaware of them.
No, I'm quite aware of them and have been for quite some time, thanks. Many of them fail the rationality test however.
And the US has already complied with his first demand. There is no longer an American presence in Saudi Arabia.
Aside from being inaccurate, your attempt to portray some kind of American capitulation to al Qaeda is disingenuous at best. We removed the majority of our forces to other areas in the region. You may have heard of one of them... Iraq. The bulk of the forces that were in Saudi Arabia prior to the invasion of Iraq were there as a deterrent from Iraq. That deterrent is no longer necessary. Aside from that, we do still maintain a small force in Saudi Arabia.
Interesting reading.
The IRA's goals were very clear. The IRA meeting those goals would not mean the end to your way of life. On the other hand, for the jihadis to attain their goals would mean the end of your way of life. You should read their varied list of demands.
I have. But as I say the amount of people who think like this, even amongst Muslims is a tiny minority. They are as important as the Klu Klux Klan. By larging them up in the way Bush and Blair have I think we do them a favour that they simply don't deserve.
They were cars filled with gasoline, propane tanks, and nails. The intent was clearly to make car bombs.
Yes, and their incompetence is staggering. They failed to explode the first two and managed to set themselves on fire with the third. I don't buy that these people are al-Qaeda. The people who planned 9-11 aren't behind these jokers.
And, with the exception of 9-11, nothing al-Qaeda have ever done exceeds the bog standard bombings of the IRA.
That's quite an astounding claim in this day and age and demonstrably not true. Approximately 60 civilians in total were killed in England during the various IRA bombings throughout the years.
I'm not talking about the number killed, I'm talking about the methodology. Bog standard bombs. Nothing more sophisticated than that.
I detect a huge amount of anti-Europeanism
Europe is not a nation, race, or religion, so I'm not even sure if such a thing is possible.
Then why do you keep lumping Europeans together in your sweeping generalisations?
Isn't seeing one group of people, not as individuals but as a series of traits, one of the ways we define prejudice? You say things that are the equivalent of "all black men have rythmn" when talking about Europeans, then defend yourself by pointing out that we're all different! You can't have it both ways.
And the US has already complied with his first demand. There is no longer an American presence in Saudi Arabia.
Aside from being inaccurate, your attempt to portray some kind of American capitulation to al Qaeda is disingenuous at best. We removed the majority of our forces to other areas in the region. You may have heard of one of them... Iraq.
Oh no, there's a reason why Bush removed troops from Saudi Arabia and why he's the first American President ever to call for a state of Palestine. Both were al Qaeda demands.
Of course, it's easier to get troops out of Saudi Arbia than getting lunatics like the neo-cons to do anything that will enrage the Israeli lobby. That's why - since making that demand - Bush's road map has withered on the vine.
And I notice that you dismiss Blair and Brown's views on how to stop al Qaeda recruiting. The Iraq war has brought them thousands of new recruits. Don't you think it's time to rethink a tactic that simply isn't working?
But as I say the amount of people who think like this, even amongst Muslims is a tiny minority.
While it may be a minority, the numbers are still frighteningly large and not what I would categorize as tiny.
I don't buy that these people are al-Qaeda.
They may or may not be connected to some other jihadi group, but I think it's fair to say at the very least that they are inspired by al-Qaeda.
I'm not talking about the number killed, I'm talking about the methodology.
I'm confused. You said: "nothing al-Qaeda have ever done exceeds the bog standard bombings of the IRA." If you're not talking about casualties, then I'm not sure what your trying to measure by using the word exceeds. The tactics of al-Qaeda and the ability to cause casualties both exceed that of the IRA, so I'm not sure what you're talking about then.
You say things that are the equivalent of "all black men have rythmn" when talking about Europeans
I'm sorry if I ever implied that all Europeans have rhythm.
Oh no, there's a reason why Bush removed troops from Saudi Arabia and why he's the first American President ever to call for a state of Palestine. Both were al Qaeda demands.
This particular logical fallacy is called Confusing Cause and Effect. I'll just leave it at that.
And I notice that you dismiss Blair and Brown's views on how to stop al Qaeda recruiting.
I don't dismiss their views (including from the guy who refuses to let his people refer to the most recent terrorists as "Muslims"), I just don't think there is any evidence to support them. It's a fine theory and makes for a good political statement, but I don't think the facts support that hypothesis.
Whenever there is a perceived wrongdoing against Muslims, there are nutjobs who are ready to join the jihad. It happened in Afghanistan (twice), Bosnia, Chechnya, Africa, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Kashmir, and Iraq, to name a few. I find it hard to believe that a Palestinian state alongside a separate Israel would do anything to curb recruitment for those other conflicts.
The Iraq war has brought them thousands of new recruits.
I don't doubt for a minute that Iraq is used as an excuse to join the jihad, just as conflicts in other places like I've stated above have been used as excuses.
Don't you think it's time to rethink a tactic that simply isn't working?
Well, they are quite a bit easier to kill when they go to Iraq, so that's not a bad thing. Now if you are talking about what would modify their behavior, I'm not convinced that a Palestinian state separate from Israel and the US out of every so-called Muslim land would quench the jihad. Maybe it would make recruitment a little harder, at least until the next perceived afront, but I don't buy that it would stop anything. When it comes down to it, the problem is their ideology.
I'm confused. You said: "nothing al-Qaeda have ever done exceeds the bog standard bombings of the IRA." If you're not talking about casualties, then I'm not sure what your trying to measure by using the word exceeds. The tactics of al-Qaeda and the ability to cause casualties both exceed that of the IRA, so I'm not sure what you're talking about then.
I'm saying that with the exception of 9-11 al-Qaeda have not come up with more inventive way to kill people than the IRA did. They are really not as sophisticated as we were led to believe. It's old fashioned bombing.
Well, they are quite a bit easier to kill when they go to Iraq, so that's not a bad thing.
It's a very bad thing, especially as your country is currently losing that war. And every innocent you kill over there only means even more sign up to al-Qaeda's cause.
We tried all of this rubbish during our time facing the IRA. None of it works. Before Bloody Sunday the IRA were nothing, after Bloody Sunday they were everywhere. And the more we illegally detained them etc., the stronger and larger they became.
I honestly consider your war in Iraq a complete disaster and the arguments it's proponents use, people like yourself, robs the US of the moral high ground.
Your nation's reputation is in tatters because of this war. I know you'll say that most Americans don't care, but Bush's position in the polls suggests otherwise.
I'm saying that with the exception of 9-11 al-Qaeda have not come up with more inventive way to kill people than the IRA did.
I wasn't aware there was a competition.
They are really not as sophisticated as we were led to believe. It's old fashioned bombing.
Their tactics and planning are actually quite a bit more sophisticated than the IRA, as is their use of media and computers.
It's a very bad thing, especially as your country is currently losing that war.
No matter what yardstick is used, not matter what progress is made, I believe you will always hold that view because your politics won't allow you to hold any other view. But that's just my opinion.
And every innocent you kill over there only means even more sign up to al-Qaeda's cause.
Maybe. What about the larger number of innocents they kill? What will that lead to? Maybe Sunni tribes taking up arms with the US against al-Qaeda? I guess those kind of developments are politically inconvenient for those around the world who are more interested in seeing failure for the US than success for the Iraqis.
And speaking of innocents... Why is it do you think that reportedly innocent people are killed, knowing that the US military only targets combatants as a matter of policy? I'll answer the question for you. Because the enemy chooses to try to look like civilians, tries to blend in with civilians, and hides behind civilians knowing that some will likely be killed as a result of these actions. In case you weren't aware, these are war crimes.
We tried all of this rubbish during our time facing the IRA.
Because we know every conflict is just like Northern Ireland, and every opponent is just like the IRA. Is this where we bring up the blitz?
I honestly consider your war in Iraq a complete disaster and the arguments it's proponents use, people like yourself, robs the US of the moral high ground.
A moral victory doesn't mean much if it's not accompanied by total victory. That said, I find most of the arguments I've heard attacking the morality of the conflict to generally be vacuous.
Your nation's reputation is in tatters because of this war. I know you'll say that most Americans don't care, but Bush's position in the polls suggests otherwise.
I do believe that most Americans don't care. I know that I don't. If you believe what you are doing is right, it's right whether or not someone else approves, and anyone who does something simply because it's popular doesn't hold much moral credibility to begin with.
As far as Bush's poll numbers go (26%), the poll numbers for the Democrat led legislature are even lower (14%). What do you think that suggests?
No matter what yardstick is used, not matter what progress is made, I believe you will always hold that view because your politics won't allow you to hold any other view. But that's just my opinion.
What measure would you like to use? Number of attacks? Frequency of attacks, number of American soldiers killed? I'd love to know which measurement you feel indicates success.
Maybe. What about the larger number of innocents they kill? What will that lead to? Maybe Sunni tribes taking up arms with the US against al-Qaeda? I guess those kind of developments are politically inconvenient for those around the world who are more interested in seeing failure for the US than success for the Iraqis.
No, those developments are suicidal. It is the Sunnis who have largely been attacking US forces and now those same US forces are arming them, whilst admitting that there is a good chance that these weapons may one day be used against them.
It really is a measure of how badly this campaign is going that you hold that up as a positive!
Because we know every conflict is just like Northern Ireland, and every opponent is just like the IRA. Is this where we bring up the blitz?
It's a war against a counter insurgency that mingles with the local population. It's the best example since Vietnam which accords with the situation that the US finds themselves in. The difference is we achieved peace in Northern Ireland and you lost the Vietnam war. Maybe you should learn, as we did, from our mistakes.
At the moment you are simply repeating them and heading for a Vietnam style loss.
I do believe that most Americans don't care. I know that I don't.
I know. You are the kind of Ugly American that the world hates, and I'm not being facetous when I say that. You really talk like you are part of a new world leading Empire and f@ck the rest of us. Thankfully most Americans don't think the way you do which is why Bush lost both houses at the last election.
It really is a measure of how badly this campaign is going that you hold that up as a positive!
Seeing many in the Sunni insurgency turn away from killing Americans and Iraqis and start fighting al-Qaeda is a bad thing? That's just bizarre.
At the moment you are simply repeating them and heading for a Vietnam style loss.
If you mean another loss imposed by politicians (a nice combination of some early mismanagement by Bush and team and unforgivable politicking by the Dems) as well as their cohorts in the media and political action groups, it's certainly possible.
You really talk like you are part of a new world leading Empire and f@ck the rest of us.
Empire has nothing to do with. The Brits, Russians, Chinese, or whoever shouldn't really care what we think of them either.
Thankfully most Americans don't think the way you do which is why Bush lost both houses at the last election.
And what do you think the 14% approval rating for the Democrat Congress means? But to be factually correct, "Bush" didn't lose Congress. The all-powerful Bush belongs to a separate branch of government that doesn't hold sway over any of the others, despite his omnipotence.
At the moment you are simply repeating them and heading for a Vietnam style loss.
If you mean another loss imposed by politicians (a nice combination of some early mismanagement by Bush and team and unforgivable politicking by the Dems) as well as their cohorts in the media and political action groups, it's certainly possible.
I actually think the war was lost in the first six months, Jason. And that came down to Rumsfeld and others deploying far too few troops to restore order to the streets. Indeed, the lack of order was something that Rumsfeld actually applauded with his ridiculous claim that, "Freedoms messy". Most of us know that freedom is no such thing. Freedom requires order and a system of law, without that you are simply dealing with anarchy.
Empire has nothing to do with. The Brits, Russians, Chinese, or whoever shouldn't really care what we think of them either.
You only think that way because your country sits atop the pile and Americans are untouchable. It's impossible to argue that Iraqis living under Saddam shouldn't have cared about what the world thought of that regime, especially as UN sanctions - imposed because the world disagreed with what Saddam was doing - resulted in the deaths of half a million babies.
Likewise, it's ridiculous to argue that Iranians shouldn't care what the world thinks of them.
As I say, you can only argue that point as an untouchable American whose country is currently running the world as it's personal empire.
And what do you think the 14% approval rating for the Democrat Congress means?
It means that the Democrats are not opposing Bush's war in Iraq forcefully enough to satisfy public demand. They were elected to end the war.
Post a Comment