Terra! Terra! Terra!
Since I posted this yesterday on the two cars packed with propane cylinders, gasoline and nails found in London's theater district, a third car tried to ram its way into a Glasgow, Scotland airport loaded with much the same cargo. It caught fire (along with the driver and passenger), but the feared explosion didn't occur. Are all three cars linked? At this point, that looks to be certain.Are the perpetrators al Qaeda? Prime Minister Brown and some police officials seem to believe that is the case, although the investigators are holding the cards pretty close to their chests at this point.
And the British response to these incidents? Well, here is one from Craig Murray*, which I suspect probably represents a goodly portion of the British public:
Thank goodness the only injured in Glasgow were the attackers, and one member of the public, who is not in danger. Fortunately, amateur does not do justice as a description of these attackers - absolute rubbish comes closer to it. It is worth noting that, if the London car bombs had ignited, they would probably have burnt like the Glasgow car, and almost certainly would not have had the kind of explosive force that the media tried to claim. Gas canisters are designed to withstand fire without exploding; they will eventually vent and the gas flare as it comes out. That is what looked on TV like it might have been happening in the back of the car in Glasgow.
Petrol and gas can be a deadly effective component of a bomb, and even a very small quantity of high explosive would have made the London car bombs potentially devastating. But there was no explosive present - I have held back on blogging on this aspect until I could confirm that fact from my own sources.
So this is not al-Qaeda, and we are not dealing with trained bomb-makers. The Glasgow attack looks like a purely home grown reaction to World events and our role in them. Assuming the London incident really is linked, the same applies. This threat will indeed remain with us until we stop being an acolyte for US foreign policy. Nobody is attacking Ireland - if Western hedonism and culture were the target, Ireland should be in big trouble. The answer is not further oppression at home, which will just exacerbate a sense of grievance.
The answer - or at least a large part of it - is to adopt a foreign policy which accords with the wishes of the majority of the British people, irrespective of the existence of terrorism.
Sane, sensible, measured, reasonable: what we'd expect from those who went through the horrendous aerial bombing of World War II and the long years of IRA bombings.
And in the US? Eh, not so much.
Here's what Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut) had to say this morning on ABC's This Week (via Think Progress):
Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) used the foiled terror attempts in London to call for greater domestic spying here in the United States. Lieberman said, “I hope these terrorist attacks in London wake us up here in America to stop the petty partisan fighting going on about…electronic surveillance,” in apparent reference to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas for documents related to Bush’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program.
Lieberman claimed, “We’re at a partisan gridlock over the question of whether the American government can listen into conversations or follow email trails of non-American citizens.” This is false; the NSA spying program covered the surveillance of American citizens. The “gridlock” exists over whether the administration will cooperate with Congress by explaining why it feels current law is inadequate and why President Bush decided to ignore the law in authorizing a spying program that almost led to mass resignations at the Department of Justice.
Liebermen went further in his calls for greater domestic spying. “The Brits have got something smart going. … They have have cameras all over London. … I think it’s just common sense to do that here much more widely.”
Whatever was Al Gore thinking when he placed him on the ticket?
*Thanks to Moonbootica for the link to Craig Murray.
And the British response to these incidents? Well, here is one from Craig Murray*, which I suspect probably represents a goodly portion of the British public:
Thank goodness the only injured in Glasgow were the attackers, and one member of the public, who is not in danger. Fortunately, amateur does not do justice as a description of these attackers - absolute rubbish comes closer to it. It is worth noting that, if the London car bombs had ignited, they would probably have burnt like the Glasgow car, and almost certainly would not have had the kind of explosive force that the media tried to claim. Gas canisters are designed to withstand fire without exploding; they will eventually vent and the gas flare as it comes out. That is what looked on TV like it might have been happening in the back of the car in Glasgow.
Petrol and gas can be a deadly effective component of a bomb, and even a very small quantity of high explosive would have made the London car bombs potentially devastating. But there was no explosive present - I have held back on blogging on this aspect until I could confirm that fact from my own sources.
So this is not al-Qaeda, and we are not dealing with trained bomb-makers. The Glasgow attack looks like a purely home grown reaction to World events and our role in them. Assuming the London incident really is linked, the same applies. This threat will indeed remain with us until we stop being an acolyte for US foreign policy. Nobody is attacking Ireland - if Western hedonism and culture were the target, Ireland should be in big trouble. The answer is not further oppression at home, which will just exacerbate a sense of grievance.
The answer - or at least a large part of it - is to adopt a foreign policy which accords with the wishes of the majority of the British people, irrespective of the existence of terrorism.
Sane, sensible, measured, reasonable: what we'd expect from those who went through the horrendous aerial bombing of World War II and the long years of IRA bombings.
And in the US? Eh, not so much.
Here's what Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut) had to say this morning on ABC's This Week (via Think Progress):
Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) used the foiled terror attempts in London to call for greater domestic spying here in the United States. Lieberman said, “I hope these terrorist attacks in London wake us up here in America to stop the petty partisan fighting going on about…electronic surveillance,” in apparent reference to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas for documents related to Bush’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program.
Lieberman claimed, “We’re at a partisan gridlock over the question of whether the American government can listen into conversations or follow email trails of non-American citizens.” This is false; the NSA spying program covered the surveillance of American citizens. The “gridlock” exists over whether the administration will cooperate with Congress by explaining why it feels current law is inadequate and why President Bush decided to ignore the law in authorizing a spying program that almost led to mass resignations at the Department of Justice.
Liebermen went further in his calls for greater domestic spying. “The Brits have got something smart going. … They have have cameras all over London. … I think it’s just common sense to do that here much more widely.”
Whatever was Al Gore thinking when he placed him on the ticket?
*Thanks to Moonbootica for the link to Craig Murray.
Labels: Domestic Spying, Fourth Amendment
posted by Diane at 11:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home