At least four coordinated bombs detonated on London transportation routes this morning. A double-decker bus was torn apart by an explosion and at least three Tube stations were attacked.
Al-Qaeda al-Jihad has claimed responsibility on the day after London recieved the winning bid for the 2012 Olympics, the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland continues, and perhaps most importantly, radical Islamist Abu Hamza al-Mazri was to be put on trial.
More information as it comes.
UPDATE: Josh Trevino is in Edinburgh, headed to London and writes about the immediate aftermath of the attacks.
UPDATE: FoxNews is carrying a report from Britain’s SkyTV that the bus bombing may have been caused by a suicide bomber.
UPDATE: Captain’s Quarters notes that we’re all Britons today. This war is a war in which all of Western Civilization must defend itself against an ideology of terrorism and destruction. We’ve had September 11, the Australians had Bali, and now Britain faces the aftermath of the London attacks. These horrific events only underscore the absolute necessity of ensuring that such an ideology is not allowed to flourish and cause further devastation.
UPDATE: This shocking attack demonstrates the very evil of groups like al-Qaeda. The first bombings drove people out of the Underground and onto buses – where another detonation was already planned (rumored to be a suicide bomber). That’s almost certainly evidence that this was an al-Qaeda attack. Al-Qaeda’s MO is to use multiple mass-casualty attacks, driving rescue personnel into an area where another attack can knock them out as well.
Belmont Club estimates at least 40 people involved in the attacks. That figure seems about right – you’d need multiple bombers, money men, as well as a network of safehouses. Something tells me that the trail of this event will lead to the viper pit that is the Finsbury Park Mosque. Radical Islam has been allowed to fester in London for far too long, and Islamic radicals have found a safe haven inside many British communities. This is something that Blair will have to face, and he’s been far too reticent to do that previously.
UPDATE: Evan Kohlmann of the Counterterrorism Blog believes that the statement of responsibility was a hoax. Based on the evidence, that’s well within the realm of possibility. Al-Qaeda doesn’t normally claim responsibility for attacks, and while this attack has all the hallmarks of a Qaeda operation, it isn’t at all certain that the group claiming responsibility has anything to do with those who actually carried out the attack.
The bombings in London are another example og how the polcies of George Bush and Tony Blair have simply failed. Yes, we are all “Britons” today, but that does not mean we should rally around two very unpopular men who have lead their respective countries to disaster. Iraq has become a breeding ground, training terrorists to perform the kinds of attacks seen in London today. It will be interestng to know where the attackers were from.
Mr. George Galloway said it best today:
“We [the Respect Party ] argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such warnings.”
Much as our commanders in the field have realized that the insurgency in Iraq will never be ended through a purely military solution, but only through political means, so should we realize (and our Democratic leaders proselytize) that terrorism cannot be ended solely through the application of brute military force. It will require diplomacy, negotiation with our allies, intelligence gathering and yes, law enforcement and criminal prosecution of individual terrorists in all countries plagued by this pandemic of nihilistic violence.
War has failed as a solution. It is time for our leaders to say so.
My guess is from the very same radical Islamic communities that comprise the base of support for Mr. Galloway.
Treating terrorism as a criminal matter would be as foolish and futile as trying to arrest Hitler for the Blitz. This was yet another act of war, and the only solution to ending this violence is not to play the neverending game of Whack-A-Mole that would result by treating this as a criminal matter, but by discrediting and destroying the ability for Islamic terrorists to wage their jihad on the West.
Well, your guess would be wrong, Jay. I suppose, in your mind, anyone that questions the failed policies of the Presodent and the UK PM is a terrorist supporter. At least, that what you seem to suggest.
Obviously, that is so wrong on so many levels.
You don’t “destroy the ability for islamic terrorists to wage their jihad on the West” by invading Iraq. And comparing Nazi Germany to Islamic Fundamentalism is like comparing ancient Rome to Buddism. One is a country. The other is a movement.
Big difference.
Since military action has failed (yes, it has Jay- you are lying to yourself if you think otherwise), the better way to combat terrorism is internationalism, law enforcement, and cooperation. Of course, these tactics are against the modern neocon movement. I don’t expect you to understand them. They work. Bush’s way doesn’t.
July 7 in London will happen in New York (again), or LA, or Paris, or Moscow, or Warsaw.
Oh, and I like your new site design, Jay. I will recommend it to others. I disagree with almost everything you say, and I feel your opinion is not an informed one. However, you have created an excellent blog site, and I commend your committment to it.
Bush has to be shitting his pants right now realizing that these attack could spell doom for Britain’s alliance with America. God help American troops if it does. The only thing that could save Bush is that Blair was recently re-elected and won’t face any imminent retribution from British voters, and thus may not respond to the attacks the way two-thirds of them will want him to.
Blair does not have solid support from his own party. He is very unpopular in Britain as well. Bush isn’t shitting his pants because Bush was re-elected and he’s there until Democrats impeach him, or 2009. What will hopefully come to light is exposing the completely bogus “We fight them in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here,” line.
That just went right out the window.
Thanks for the compliments about the site.
Now, on to the arguments. 🙂
Not hardly. In the case of Galloway, yes, I do believe he is a tacit supporter of terrorism and a fifth columnist. Yet there are many people who criticize Bush Administration policies and do so for perfectly legitimate reasons. More of then than not they’re wrong, but that’s a far cry from being a supporter of terrorism.
Communism was a movement. Fascism was a movement. Islamism is also a movement, but there’s no magic to Islamism that suddenly makes it impossible to destroy. The liberation of Iraq from the Hussein regime has:
1) Introduced the concept of a native grass-roots democracy into the very heart of the Arab world. Even Lebanese leader Walid Jumblatt admitted that the elections in Iraq were the equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall for the Arab world.
2) Demonstrated that al-Qaeda doesn’t have any compunction against murdering fellow Arabs or Muslims. Al-Qaeda is literally tearing itself apart in Iraq as even the Sunnis realize they’re nothing more than a bunch of thugs. If you want to create some kind of pan-Arab caliphate, the last thing you want to do is start indescriminately murdering civilians. Al-Qaeda has ultimately lost the war in Iraq, it’s just a matter of how much damage they can do before the situation stabilizes.
3) The removal of Hussein has been followed by a series of important events in the Middle East. First, Libya unilaterally gave up their entire WMD program – and Qadafi himself indicated it was largely because he didn’t want to end up like Saddam. The evidence obtained there helped shut down the A.Q. Khan nuclear network that was spreading nuclear technology to rogue states worldwide. After the unprecedented free elections in Iraq, Lebanon had its Cedar Revolution, there’s ongoing pro-democracy demonstrations in Cairo and Tehran, Kuwaiti women gained the vote, and Syria and Saudi Arabia are facing increasing pressure to also democratize.
Would all of these had happened were Saddam to have remained in power? We can only guess, but the evidence suggests it would not.
This leads to #4: The only way to end the threat is to reform the Middle East. Law enforcement is great, but all it takes is one lucky strike, and the next attack may not be with conventional weapons as it was in London. Imagine the carnage had those bombs been stuffed with antrax, VX, or sarin. Playing defense is not an acceptable strategy in this war. The only way to reduce the threat is to deal with the threat at its source, and the source of the current threat is the autocracy of the Middle East.
The terrorists of al-Qaeda have disagreements that go far beyond Iraq. They believe that our actions in Afghanistan were enough to invite attack. The ideology of the terrorists are based on the radical worldview of Sayyid Qutb. He divides the world into Dar al-Islam (The House of Belief) and Dar al-Harb (The House of War). They don’t want to just be left alone, this ideology stresses that the very existence of the “infidel” is an affront to Islam.
Either we deal with the threat now, or we face more attacks just like this. Prime Minister Blair had allowed places like London’s Finsbury Park Mosque to become havens of radical Islam. Leaving these places to continue to become havens for terrorists is no longer an acceptable option for anyone.
Either we stand and fight, or we fall piece by piece. This is indeed a war of civilizations, and God help us if we lose sight of that and allow the radical Islamists to cow us into dhimmitude and defeat.
Drago, I’m suggesting that Bush is shitting his pants because if British troops were to withdraw following the attacks, the burden for this war would be almost entirely covered by American troops, meaning that already diminishing support for the war at home would plunge. It may also necessitate a military draft. The only reason support for the war remains as strong as it is in America is because 80% of us are not asked to endure a single personal sacrifice because of it. If 18-year-old boys from the suburbs were suddenly at risk of mandatory military service in Iraq, the issue of sacrifice would suddenly hit far too close to home to millions of “patriotic Republicans” with Support the Troops bumper stickers on their SUVs.
If there is any “magic” to Islamism that makes it significantly different from Fascism or Communism, it’s this-
it’s an otherworldly, non-falsifiable ideology.
Fascism relied upon the ideology of racial supremacy and the ability of a superior race to defeat all enemies and forge an empire on earth. When democratic capitalism proved far more capable of waging war and forging empires, fascism died- it had been falsified. When the communist “heaven on earth” failed to materialize, most communists lost faith- it failed to materialize.
The problem with Islamism is that nothing HAS to materialize. Islamists, unlike Communists and Fascists, can be defeated over and over again- and merely see that as a sign of their moral superiority. There is no way to falsify this ideology. The only way to win this war is to offer a favorable alternative.
When you’ve got a favorable alternative to 72 virgins in paradise to offer an unemployed, sex-starved Saudi, call me.
It is true that some Islamofascists are such pathological loons that nothing can shake their sickbag faith. They must be wiped out pour encourager les autres.
But even in the world of Islam, there is a majority who may believe wholeheartedly in their primitive religion yet still would like to continue looking on at its fortunes from terra firma rather than Allahland-upon-Cloudville. Provided we stand firm and convince them, as we convinced the Japanese and Germans 60 years ago, that they are absolutely, totally defeated, they will decide that discretion is the better part of jihad.
Wishing away the plague of homicidal Islamism is not an option.
Jay, terrific new site design. Congratulations.
“Not hardly. In the case of Galloway, yes, I do believe he is a tacit supporter of terrorism and a fifth columnist. Yet there are many people who criticize Bush Administration policies and do so for perfectly legitimate reasons. More of then than not they’re wrong, but that’s a far cry from being a supporter of terrorism.”
Well, I took your comment about Galloway to mean all people. You are simply wrong saying Galloway is a supporter of terrorism. Be that as it is, his words ring true. Iraq is now a beacon for terrorists.
“Communism was a movement. Fascism was a movement. Islamism is also a movement, but there’s no magic to Islamism that suddenly makes it impossible to destroy.”
Yes, you’re right. Facsism is a movement, but were not talking about “fascism” as an idea. Nazi Germany (your comparative choice) was a country, not an idea. Comparing Islamic Fundamentalism to it is missing the point and speaking ignorance. You do not combat radical terrorism by invading countries. It simply does not work. This gets back to our initial discussion: terrorism is an intelligence/law enforcement issue, not a military one.
The military tact after 9/11 taken by Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz was an absolute failure. There is no “grass roots” democracy happening in Iraq, as you suggested. To suggest there is is not having one’s mind in reality. Iraq is occupied by American forces. That’s it. Elections (conducted mostly by powerful Shia) are meaningless when an army of over 100K still patrol the streets, shoot civilians, and destroy homes. It’s now 7 months since the “elections” and Iraq STILL does not have a stable, working government. And if London’s bombing showed us anything it’s that al Qaeda is alive and well, four years after we invaded Afghanistan in order to destroy them.
A lot of what you say Jay is simply not grounded in fact. Libya did not give up its nuke program in response to Iraq. They’d been negotiating that with Britian long before Baghdad fell. Iraq’s elections were a sham, a hollow gesture full of pretty pictures that hasn’t generated jack squat. Syria and Iran are as dominanti n the region as they ever were, with Iran thumbing its nose at the world by building its nuke program, knowing full well the US can’t do anything to stop them because we’re stuck in Iraq.
This all brings me to your #4 point: nobody is saying playing “defense” defeats terror. You may think people are, but what you THINK and what people are actually advocating are sometimes very much at odds. Liberals, like myself, advocate anti-terrorism tactics championed by Richard Clark, Rand Beers, and Bill Clinton. You’d think neocons like you would agree with Clark and Beers. These men worked for Reagan and Bush Sr., and Clark is a Republican. They advocate using intelligence, world cooperation, and law enforcement agencies like the FBI, INTERPOL, Scotland Yard, etc. to gather info and strike. We advocate this because we know it WORKS. How do we know? Here’s a fact:
From 2001 to 2004, terrorist attacks against the West have increased in Bush II’s administration. In 2004, there were 3,192 “signifcant” terrorist attacks alone.
From 1995 to 2000, during the Clinton years, terrorism declined drastically around the world. In 1995, there were 200 “significant” terrorist acts committed. By 2000, there were less than 100 “significant” terrorist acts.
Here’s the link with more info: http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1002
Those are facts, cold and hard. Bush’s way doesn’t work. Deomcrats’ way does.
Oh, and the lady in your site logo is HOT! 😉
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
Freedom.
That’s why Iraq is so important in the long term. It’s easy to turn someone in a terrorist when all they have is impotent rage. The only way many people in the Middle East can effect change is by blowing themselves up. They can’t choose their leaders. They can’t find a job. They have almost no future. Their culture is moribund. The entire Arab world produces fewer books than Spain.
The way we’ll ultimately win this war is when the democrats in the Middle East wake the rest up to the fact that there’s a better way. That would have perhaps happened in time, but the stakes of terrorism don’t give us the luxury of waiting for it to happen on its own. The bloody status quo in the Middle East was just too damn dangerous to let fester.
Iraq is already developing a sense of civic nationalism and civil society. That’s why al-Qaeda has to stop the process going on there. The second the Arab world starts realizing that they’re a bunch of murderous shitbags and that they can get rid of the autocratic bastards keeping them under their bootheel, what happened in Lebanon a few months ago will seem like a picnic.
So long as the West remains firm, the Islamists have lost. Even the Sunnis in Iraq are starting to turn against them. The only question is how much damage they can do before they and their ideology fall apart.
A place where terrorists go to die. The casualty rate on the other side isn’t disclosed, but every encounter we have with them results in them taking heavy casualties.
That and they’re not winning any friends in Iraq – the Sunnis are even starting to turn against them.
The strategy is quite clear. The sure-fire way of dealing with terrorism is to eradicate it. Terrorism is more than just a crime, its an act of war, and it must be treated as such.
Which is simply wrong. 60% of the Iraqi electorate turned out to vote – better than many American elections. And the accusation that American troops are “shooting civilians” and “burning homes” is both wrong and absolutely disgusting. That’s why the left gets called anti-American. They make these kinds of outrageous and irresponsible statements that tar the actions of every soldier on the ground in Iraq. Most American troops spend their time trying to protect the Iraqi people, rebuild houses and the shattered Iraqi infrastructure, and save lives.
Iraq has a government, and an elected one at that. By December they’ll have another round of elections. There are places in Iraq that have never had free elections and yet have functioning local councils run by pro-democracy politicians.
Qaddafi himself told Silvio Berlusconi that he disarmed specifically because of what happened to Saddam. And the timing of his announcement is rather suspicious… The elections in Iraq I’ve already dealth with. Syria and Iran are still problems, but both have seem unprecedented levels of anti-regime protests. Iran has been on the brink of revolution for quite some time now, and the election of Ahmadinejad has a good chance of accelerating that process.
Which is fine, but that assumes that we can keep striking at every terrorist cell on the planet before they hit us – and all it takes is one nuke before millions end up dead.
Except it doesn’t. The 1990s saw al-Qaeda begin a clear pattern of escalation. Al-Qaeda struck the Khobar Towers, and we did little. They hit us in Africa, and we did little. They hit the Cole and we did little. They tried to hit LA, and we did little. It was only after September 11th that they suffered consequences for their actions.
Read bin Laden’s own writings. He makes it quite clear he viewed the US as a paper tiger that was unwilling to sacrifice anything to protect itself – and that all he needed to do was inflict a little pain and we’d bend to his will.
The 1990s utterly vindicated him. His 1998 fatwa against the West specifically mentions the Black Hawk Down incident in Mogadishu – that for all America’s military might, we were too weak and cowardly to defend ourselves.
Bin Laden wrote then when people see a weak horse, they laugh, but when they see a strong horse they treat it with respect. Bin Laden saw America as the weak horse, and anything we would do to vindicate that assumption would only encourage al-Qaeda.
And furthermore, Waxman lied. The methodology of the newer data is different than in previous years. The datasets are remarkably different. The last report indicated a “spike” in violence in Kashmir, despite the fact that the violence there was significantly less than in previous years.
Even if treating terrorism like a crime “worked’ in the past, it’s not even remotely smart over the long term. All it takes is one lucky attack and millions are dead. “Living with” terrorism is not an acceptable alternative, and the only way to deal with terrorism is to end the autocratic regimes that feed it.
OK, on that one I’ll agree completely. 🙂
“Freedom.” So radical Islam fades into the sunset if Iraqis have biennial elections, Dr. Pepper and “Walker, Texas Ranger”? Why is it that Muslim communities in existing Western democracies throughout Europe are enclaves of Muslim extremism if a taste of “freedom” is all it takes to compel jihadists to embrace the infidels?
Even unemployment and poverty isn’t the primary enabler of radical Islam’s recruitment strategy. Osama bin Laden didn’t find the 9-11 hijackers barefoot on the streets of Riyadh…these people were financially secure.
Those hoping for easy answers to the problem of Islamic extremism can expect to be sorely disappointed. Even if we are able to magically turns things around and succeed in Iraq, it’s hard to figure how centuries worth of faith-based warfare will lay down its collective arms when informed that “freedom” has been won.
Folks, that is an example of a very smart and probing response.
And yes, Mark is right. (Cue gasps here.) There is no easy answer to terrorism. Even “freedom” is a very loaded concept. Making the Middle East free is going to require building civil society where there is none, instituting the rule of law, and promoting religious tolerance. That’s going to take generations.
And Mark is also right that terrorists, by and large, aren’t poor people. They tend to be middle class or better – Mohammad Atta and most of the other 9/11 hijackers were from fairly affluent families. It’s very likely that the London bombers were in England for a very long time, and may have been English citizens.
Places like the Finsbury Park Mosque have long been havens for Islamic radicalism, and I’d give good odds that a connection between a that mosque or one likes it turns up.
While Mark is substantially right (rare as such a thing my be… :p) the same failures of the Arab world effect them. They, probably more so than the average Arab, see the difference between the Arab world and the West. And because they see the Arab world as a failure, that may well maake them more likely to try and lash out at the West.
What is interesting is that the profile of the average terrorist who engages in an attack like this and the profile of the average cult member are astonishingly alike. Both tend to be relatively well off, but societally alienated.
If there were an easy solution to terrorism, we’d have done it by now. It’s going to take a combination of defeating terrorists abroad and nation-building in the Middle East and police and intelligence work at home. Neither one is complete without the other, and the US, the UK, and all other governments are going to have to be willing to stand up to terrorism if we’re going to prevent attacks like the one in London from being commonplace.