|
Like a lot of Americans I woke up this morning to the terrible news from London. I rushed to the living room after hearing the news on my clock radio, turned on the television and squinted at the screen without my glasses. Even without corrective lenses I could see these attacks were not the work of Al Qaeda.
My reasons are as follows:
My condolences to the injured and the loved ones of the dead. If this is taken as insensitive I apologize in advance. But I think it's necessary to point out these inconsistencies.
Update: I should mention that I am operating under the assumption that there were no suicide bombers involved.
Update 2 - 1700 GMT: Confederate Yankee finds similar reasons to doubt that AQ was behind the attacks. He suspects UK Muslim wannabes. I doubt that, but I could be wrong. Some may remember that an attack similar in intended effect and scope to today's was thwarted in Park Slope in Brooklyn in 1997. It was thwarted because an assimilated U.S. Muslim ratted out the plotters. I may be wrong, but I suspect this sort of intervention hobbles nearly every domestic-Muslim terror organization located in the West. That's not to say one couldn't slip through, but I don't think this one is the one.
Coming from the anti-G8 left, we are pleased to see pre-emptory misattribution only hours after the tragedy! Now that it's been all but confirmed that Karl Rove is a traitor who may well be eligible for the firing squad, we can comfortably accept that Sterling is the thin edge of the orthodox, neo-facist right willing to ignore reality (or at least to act with decisive ignorance for his own ends) to bend public will for anti-democratic ends. Based on your rather impressive logic, does this mean that Greenpeace was responsible for Madrid, and Iraq for the WTC?
Posted by: 99 on July 7, 2005 04:39 PMThe very fact that you are ready to rise to hostility over something as meaningless and airy as a G8 summit makes my point for me. The rage directed at the G8 is primarily European and culturally Marxist, not Islamist.
These attacks serve no central goal of Al Qaeda. It's possible that they are similar to the sniper attacks in Virginia and Maryland, the work of a small group of deranged Al Qaeda sympathizers with no connection to the main group, but I doubt it.
Posted by: Sterling on July 7, 2005 04:50 PMSterling left off that the jamoke that claimed the act as the work of "The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe" also misquoted the Quaran, which indicates that indeed this is a piss poor attempt to misdirect attention.
99 I think you might take a second out and breathe before typing next time. Sterling meerly indicated the typical suspects whenever anything goes wrong in the UK. And, I hate to tell you, he's as incapable of changing the public perception as you or I are. Jesus man, relax.
The fact that the attack was designed for mass mahem and nothing more does indicate it's a group with a more economic agenda, like possibly the ELF or some other group of eco-terrorist wackos.
99, didn't the ideal of anarchy die with Sid Vicious, or did I miss something?
Posted by: Sanford on July 7, 2005 05:00 PMJust thought about it, the ELF wouldn't blow up public transportation, they'd burn down an Aston Martin or Jaguar dealership. That plus the ELF probably don't operate outside of the USA. So, it's probably some other group of wackos.
Posted by: Sanford on July 7, 2005 05:09 PMSanford: could you post a list of bombing attacks on this scale that have been positively attributed to groups that are 'eco-terrorist' wackos? Spiking trees, while abhorrent (and not worse that dumping chemical waste in the Hudson, by the by), is not bombing the Tube.
I didn't contend the IRA claim, or that it might be traced to another socio-political insurgency (Hamas, ETA, etc.), but given that most of the violence at G8 events has been in the form of police beating protestors, I find it a little offensive that Sterling so blithely points that finger at, what, Slow Food activists?
If you review Sterling's poorly constructed argument, you would conclude that Madrid does not qualify as an AQ attack either, as did opportunist elements of the Spanish government. He's just running the same playbook. Why not blame it on Ken Livingstone, Sterling? After all, it's not even the end of the day yet, so its best to nail this down before any annoying evidence turns up.
Posted by: 99 on July 7, 2005 05:09 PMDoes it strike anyone else as odd that I'm being accused of insufficient suspicion of Muslims? I'm sick to my stomach over what happened this morning. But somebody is playing a double game here - they killed 40 or 50 people and maimed, crippled or disfigured dozens or hundreds more - and is putting a fair amount of effort into making it seem like Muslims did it. I don't think they did. It could be British nationalists for all I know, if that makes you feel better.
But I look at all the information available and I see Omagh, not World Trade Center.
As for Madrid, I believe Al Qaeda was behind that, but that it served a tactical rather than strategic goal - getting rid of Aznar and thus pushing Spain into a prone position to make reabsorption into Islam easier to accomplish. It was successful in that.
Posted by: Sterling on July 7, 2005 05:20 PMCheck out point # 3 their grasshopper,
"ELF / ALF Summary
1)The events of Sept 11th have not deterred the will of individuals members of the ELF/ALF to continue committing acts of civil disobedience, arson, theft and destruction of private or public property.
2)Previously the ALF/ELF has prided themselves in not injuring persons in carrying out their attacks in the name of the environment and animals.
3)However, recently members of the ALF/ELF have announced the adoption of a new tactic of targeting individuals, specifically heads of the insurance industry and corporate leaders of businesses and industry they opposed."
http://www.globalterrorism101.com/UTEnvironmentalTerrorism.html
Plus, didn't I say in post # 4 exactly that it was probably a bunch of mohawked goons much like yourself? I find it sad that people these days are too big a cowards to claim their actions as their own and instead hide behind the grisly shadow of a basically defunct group of wackos.
If it was some quasi-government group, I hope the air-fuel bombs taste good.
Posted by: Sanford on July 7, 2005 05:39 PMIf this was the work of the IRA, which I very much doubt, it would, I believe, be the deadliest IRA attack ever. The total number of dead and injured is much closer to 9/11 and Madrid than it is to most other terrorst attacks. People tend to concentrate on the death toll, which is why 9/11 stands out so much -- there were almost no injuries at the WTC. But this is a big operation, not a small operation, and there's no way that one or even three people could have carried it out. I have no idea whether this weird Secret Organization entity even exists, let alone committed the offense, but whoever organised this has perpetrated quite possibly the worst terrorist attack ever on British soil. And that's saying something.
Posted by: Felix on July 7, 2005 05:41 PM99, yanked this off the ELF's official "News Website." I believe it's safe to say it was some group loosely affiliated with these wacks.
"Inside the weird world of the G8 anarchists
IF YOU need directions, then ask a policeman. Never was this more true than when I took my early steps into the world of the front-line activists who have dedicated their lives to disrupting the G8 summit at Gleneagles. Struggling to find the real venue for a planning meeting held by a loose coalition of anarchist groups in Glasgow in February, I knew I had reached the right place when I spotted a police helicopter circling helpfully overhead. The line of battered old vans and the knots of people smoking roll-ups in the foyer only served to confirm what the security services already knew. Here, in a room at Glasgow School of Art, was a snapshot of anarchy in the UK. The only anarchy on show, however, was the groups of children running wild around the meeting space as we discussed the finer points of keeping on the right side of Scots law while carrying out a disruptive - but non-violent - protest. The worst disruption - perhaps a case of getting your retaliation in first - came from the helicopter buzzing overhead. Those speaking had to raise the decibels by shouting to get their points across. It lent a farcical atmosphere to the serious matter of planning to spoil the G8 party in Perthshire. It was part of my six-month journey into the lives of the activists who will be on the frontline of political confrontation, peaceful or otherwise. It was a world in which neo-hippy mumbo-jumbo met hardline, expert protest technique. Activists met in circles - use of a table was regarded as too corporate - and indicated their approval or disapproval of decisions by waving both their hands in the air, hokey-cokey style (up for agree, down for disagree). But there was a more serious side. Surnames were never used and all talk of the direct actions that are inevitable were quickly closed down due to fears of infiltration. Events, however, were orchestrated with a clear purpose in mind. "From July 6th to 8th, violent extremists [ie G8 leaders] will be converging on Scotland... they'll be trying to meet at Gleneagles hotel, and we'll be trying to stop them." So read the irony-heavy manifesto of the Dissent network, the leading anti-G8 protest group currently mobilising activist groups. I learned of plans to blockade the roads leading to Gleneagles, in order to stop the huge numbers of administrative assistants and translators required to make the summit a success getting to the luxury hotel venue. This was a tactic which had disrupted the G8 meeting in Evian, France. Plans were circulated to make human-chain blockades more effective with the use of "lock-on tubes" made from metal, plastic and cardboard. Activists first push their arms down the tubes and then lock their hands together using clips (karabiners) used by climbers. The police then find it difficult to move protestors individually as they have in the past. Tube workshops have been set up in Edinburgh and Glasgow to prepare for the events ahead. Many discussions also centred on the so-called "convergence space" which will become the anarchist group's strike base within easy reach of Gleneagles. A site, being called an "eco-village" and housing up to 5,000 protestors, was approved by Stirling Council on Friday. It is from the solar-powered camp that protest leaders will initiate and co-ordinate direct actions. One will be a demonstration at Faslane on Monday, July 4. Activist documents gave detailed instructions on how to cut through the toughest of wire mesh fences. My first tentative steps to becoming a fellow "comrade" began with an open meeting held by the Autonomous Centre of Edinburgh (ACE) in a meeting hall in the city centre in early February. From initial impressions, it was difficult to see how any of those present would be capable of organising any serious counter revolutionary activity. The group consisted of around 30 people of varying nationalities, including Spanish, German, American, Dutch and Italian. Only a few Scots were present, along with some dubious-looking extras wearing very pristine combat trousers and brand new hiking boots. It was difficult to tell if they were journalists or police officers - but they were definitely not of the activist ilk.There were no formal introductions to begin the meeting - and those who arrived not knowing the group already obviously didn't need to know. The group has no clear hierarchy, though there were a few individuals who were very obviously pushing the agenda. Those present were asked to make a brief statement outlining what they wanted to achieve by joining the G8 protests, without actually naming themselves. A young man, with blue hair which covered only one side of his head, introduced himself as simply 'an anarchist'. Although he had no clear idea of what he wanted to achieve, he knew he wanted to at least be involved, preferably within the groups arranging suitable squats in the Edinburgh area. MORE "
http://www.earthliberationfront.com/
Posted by: Sanford on July 7, 2005 05:58 PMYou may be right, who knows (not me) but your reasoning isn't particularly sound. 1-5 might be accounted for by the possibility that AQ is a weaker organization than it was four years ago. W/r/t 6, AQ has long been seen as a loose affiliation of groups, not a centralized organization. 7 argues against itself; the G8 is such an irrelevence that maybe the timing is accidental; what about the Olympics? 8 leaves me baffled; AQ DOES "just" go around killing people. You could have made point 9 about Madrid, and you would have been wrong there, and I also don't buy the logic, although that's a separate point. 10 relies on your assumptions in 1-9.
Posted by: Matthew on July 7, 2005 05:59 PMI reckon it was Johnny Frog. The French have a habit of being somewhat highhanded in respect of governmental responsibility for outrages (cf Rainbow Warrior) and President Chirac, who is clearly losing his marbles au moment juste, was mightily enraged at losing out to London/Blair in getting the 2012 Olympics. Mark my words, the Frogs are behind it.
Posted by: Claude de Bigny on July 7, 2005 06:09 PMMatthew - you're correct that the AQ playbook may have changed significantly in the last few years due to dimished capacity.
Regarding 8, I meant to include "randomly" in there. Sorry, my error. Al Qaeda does not go around randomly killing people. if we look at the Cole bombing, the 9/11 attacks and the Bali bombing, in each instance the people killed were involved or associated with an activity that Al Qaeda detests. In the deranged minds of the Jihadists, I suspect such murders are "honor killings" of a sort.
The Madrid bombing was opportunistic and aimed at a short-term goal, as I wrote in an earlier comment. So I consider it tactical or maybe strategic on a smaller scale than AQ's earlier mass-attacks. It lacked the symbolism of earlier attacks. But Spain, like Israel and maybe America, is anything-goes territory. AQ's top three goals, it should not be forgotten, are to destroy the Israeli state and reclaim Palestine for Islam, drive American military forces from Arabia and the Middle East, and thirdly to destroy the Spanish Catholic Church and Spanish state and reclaim Andalusia for Islam. Spaniards can be killed in box lots for shits and giggles under AQ rules, just like Israelis.
Felix - I'm going to write something here that a lot of people might get very upset about. So please, before any of you react, just try to think about it. In the years since September 11, I have come to believe that Al Qaeda deliberately minimized the American casualties in New York. The reasons for this are that both planes struck before 9am, when they easily could have delayed for 15 minutes, and that the first plane struck high on the north tower, whereas the second plane, perhaps assuming that evacuation had occurred, struck lower on the south tower to better guarantee a collapse. The simple fact is that if both planes had struck 20 minutes later, low on the towers, the death toll would have been at least 30,000 and maybe as many as 60,000.
This is in marked contrast to the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, which occurred well into the business day, and if successful would have crashed one tower into the other, probably bringing both down while filled with people. Further, it is a not-widely-known fact that in addition to explosives, the van in the WTC parking deck was loaded with chlorine gas, doubtless intended to spread a death shroud over lower Manhattan that could have claimed tens of thousands of lives. So while the 1993 attack was clearly planned to kill 100,000 or more Americans, it seems like the 2001 attacks were deliberately carried out in a fashion to kill fewer than 10,000 or 15,000 (in New York, at least). Perhaps similarly, from what I've read the train bombs in London today were far, far less powerful than the bombs in Madrid last year.
The awful truth is that once you have a few pounds of modern explosive, killing lots of people is easy, especially if you have willing kamikazes. When a terror bombing involving an a abundant supply of explosives doesn't kill at least hundreds of people, we have to ask why. Was a deliberate attempt to limit casualties involved, or is it a result of limited competence or manpower? On 9/11 I think there was deliberate restraint in effect, probably to lower the chance of what happened anyway: a major American military offensive in the Middle East and South Asia, with global reach. Today I suspect there just weren't enough people involved to manually activate the bombs for maximum effect.
Posted by: Sterling on July 7, 2005 07:02 PMSanford: I didn't have time to review your posts in detail, but the list of ELF/ALF actions seem focused on property (and animals -- I think its interesting that harmed animals taken from testing laboratories are listed; wouldn't those animals end up dead by design?), and I did not see anything that was targeted at humans.
Ford elects not to fix a faulty gas tank and its called risk assessment. ALF torches two cars and its terrorism? Is there something I'm missing about the granular difference in the fires caused in these two instances? Oh, wait, people in the Pintos died.
As to your second post -- um, aside from cutting fences (which I assume were erected to prevent protestors from getting to the site of the meetings -- is this any worse that Repubicans physically invading vote counting facilities in FLA in 2000?), what acts of violence are listed?
I mean, are you incapable of differentiating between bombing a bus and cutting a fence? If not, then I hope you are comfortable saying 'anti-abortion terrorists' because that most certainly applies.
I don't see what is gained, aside from a partisan and rather thoughtless bit of oneupmanship, in trying to assign blame before the debris is cleared.
This was a logistically complex and horrific act. Certainly suicide bombings in Iraq and Israel that happen far more frequently are as well, but the security situation and particulars of those crimes present a different threat. Conclusively determining who did this, and how tenuous or not their connection is to AQ is relevant to the safety of people in this city, and any major western captial (sorry if that sounds self-interested). Sterling's blithe 'this isn't horrific enough' Powerline-inlfected yammering is trebly traitorous because it inflames our enemies, demeans the victims, and leaves those forutnate enough to escape harm in a more precarious position, since it does nothing to address security or determing the root cause (which would also aid in making things safer). Sterling cares about security? Bullshit. Because if he did, he would have never written this post in the first place.
Posted by: 99 on July 7, 2005 07:17 PMWow, Sterling you seem to be both thinking too much, and too little, all at the same time, oh expert in the ways of all terrorists.
Matthew pretty much covered the basics about why your points are not so hot, but I'm going to witter on anyway:
1 - AQ has killed tens or dozens in previous attacks; it has also killed hundreds and thousands. It does not exclusively only do mass killings. Whoever planned these attacks also might have hoped for a much larger list of casualties. And 1000+ injured is hardly small.
Just because AQ might be cunning and ruthless with its attacks, doesn't mean they'll always succeed in their aims.
2 - Unless you are privvy to the secret protocols of the elders of AQ, and can inform us otherwise, er, I don't think they've ever said, mentioned, written, thought, implied or otherwise, that they only go for symbolic targets. Toppling Nelson's column would kill 2 tourists, 3 drunks and however many pigeons are too slow to move out of the way.
3- boldness is not a requirement either. So 9/11 was bold. By comparison, only something to top that will be bold.
4 - Any chance you can substantiate this? Wasn't aware that you were such an expert on personnel required. And the stuff about timing in the rush hour is utter, utter crap. Go and get on a tube or a bus in London a few times, or again if u have forgotten. They are disgusting, smelly, packed vehicles from about 7.30 to 9.30 in the morning. By your logic 9/11 couldn't have been AQ because AQ would've waited an hour until everyone was at their desks and loads more would've died.
5 - prove it, and even if not, so what? There's some proof of coordinated attacks on 9/11, none for Madrid. So what? Again, their MO does not say "only do a bombing in one country if we can do some in other countries, Otherwise there's no point". Er, no
6 - er, wot? Don't see the point. Why can't AQ do 2 things at once?
7 - Meaningless again, regardless of whichever bore you quote. wouldn't you say the bombings are getting more coverage than G8 right now? And who says it has to be timed for that?
8-9 - Getting bored now. This is just blather
10 - If it were the IRA, even a splinter group, it'd be one hell of a change of tactics for them. They rarely, in England, go for such bombings - the Harrods bombing in the 1980s being the only one that comes even close, I think. And the Omagh and Einiskillen (spelling?) bombings in N Ireland were so roundly condemned that they, eventually, seemed to have learned that killing random innocents wasn't doing them much good.
They also tend to own up pretty damned sharpish.
I'm sure I've no idea who's done it. And I'm damned sure you have no idea who didn't
99, pipe bombing a DMV? Does that fall into the "not harming a human or any animal" mantra? Nope, they are just a loose knitted, loosely witted group of tree hugging simpletons.
I imagine it's all going to come out in the wash, and Murray you are right, we don't have any idea who did it, but it's sure fun to speculate.
Posted by: Sanford on July 7, 2005 07:31 PMTwo points:
1. You state that Al Qaeda allowed its timetable to be dictated in Madrid, and I agree.
In this case, though, I think the G8 summit may be irrelevant. Let's remember that Blair and Bush are both (perceived as being) on thin ice at the moment vis-a-vis the documents leaked to the press allegedly proving that they knew there were no WMD's, and that the Iraq campaign was on the books before 9/11.
This would be a classic case of "kick him when he's down". Remember, Euro Parliaments can use a "No Confidence" vote to force new elections, and the one-two punch of major political scandal and successful terrorist attack could bring the Blair administration down. Thus, it very closely resembles the Madrid attack in terms of potential goals, even if you don't agree with the timing or the chances it would succeed (al Qaeda hoodlums aren't always right, contrary to popular opinion).
2. Lack of coordination and small scale: If we've learned anything, it is that al Qaeda is a very flexible operation that evolves both strategy and tactics. Just because they never flew airplanes into office buildings doesn't mean they never would. Just because they never pulled off a small- or medium-sized attack doesn't mean they never would. Besides, the whole Iraq campaign is a series of small operations, which in total is intended to bleed away the morale of the American people. I would call it successful, until now at least. Perhaps they have seen the power of large headlines using precisely-targeted minimal assets, and are copying the new tactic across their network.
What your points tell me is that this may in fact be a new first for al Qaeda: an operation that was put together quickly using existing assets, and executed in a simple, direct manner, ignoring the clash with the other al-Zarqawi headline. Timed for the G8 summit? The 2012 Olympics announcement? Or a case of assets that were about to be discovered by authorities, in which case they were forced to "use them or lose them"? I'm not sure.
I've always been surprised that al Qaeda didn't pull off such attacks on a regular basis. This may be the first of many. Scaring people off of mass transit systems - what effect would that have on GDP?
Like the 1993 WTC bombing, this may have been a miscalculation. They may have expected more dead. There may be more, and we just don't know it yet.
Finally, if his was the IRA, does Blair have the right to send troops to Boston? Because everyone knows most of the financing for the IRA comes from Boston Irish.
Posted by: L'Emmerdeur on July 7, 2005 07:38 PMI{m jet-lagged in Lima, so I{m getting this in drips & drabs, but isn{t the US raising the terror level for public transport a bit of shutting the barn door after the horse is out?
Posted by: mike on July 7, 2005 07:41 PMFunny. I just realized Sterling wrote the post. It was so poorly reasoned, I assumed it was one of Felix's.
Posted by: Matthew on July 7, 2005 09:51 PMI've thought about this for quite a bit today, and I think I can streamline my ten down to one reason why this was not Al-Qaeda:
It's lousy TV.
As far as Al Qaeda is concerned, we are the victims of our own media. OBL is a Jerry Bruckheimer or Ian Fleming (Broccoli) villain brought to life, and I suspect that is the narrative he struggles to mount on top of his Islamic orthodoxy - he pictures himself as our nemesis.
AQ attacks a simulation of the West and unfortunately hits the real thing. The reason it hasn't attacked Hollywood - the most obvious target - is that it wouldn't know what to do without the U.S. movie industry's output.
Osama and his followers would never blow up a train underground - bad lighting, no shot.
No spectacle = Not Al Qaeda.
L'Em - Yeah, the Blair knock down occurred to me, but I figured I'd really have a mess on my hands if I suggested someone did it to score a no-confidence vote on Blair. But there's a chance that's it.
Oh, and 99, go fuck yourself. You're so tiresome one of my eyeballs fell asleep when I read your post.
Posted by: Sterling on July 7, 2005 10:13 PMHey, Sterling why not get out your victim props again? How close were you to the WTC? How're you ankles again? Wanker.
Posted by: 99 on July 7, 2005 10:17 PMAre all our bloggers and friends OK? Eurof? We would be desolate without you and the Greek and the Goober.
Oh don't worry about us, Kartika dear, we live in Switzerland. No-one would blow us up, we're neutral.
Mind you, I also thought no-one would blow up Edgeware Road tube either, which was my station when I lived in London. The area is chock full of Iraqis, Iranians, Lebanese, assorted arabs and north africans and any local jihadist bomber trying it might blow up his mum by accident.
Sterling, you made me laugh! Ha ah ha ha!! See? Do write another one, I am sure the assorted detectives trying to solve the bombing would appreciate the guidance.
Posted by: eurof on July 8, 2005 07:17 AMYeah, laugh it up, Eurof. Just like most of you did when I stuck to my guns on the electoral college returns for Bush in last year's elections. There is no President Kerry, and there was no Al Qaeda attack on London yesterday. Somebody else did it - maybe Muslims, maybe not.
Posted by: Sterling on July 8, 2005 10:04 AMHonest, it was us Frogs what did it! Not acting alone, of course, but us Frogs were the puppetmasters...
But Sterling, what makes you think AQ only mount a certain kind of attack? Are you so sure you know what the composition of AQ is, and how they decide which attacks to mount? Surely AQ is composed of a lot of different cells with a level of autonomy/central control we are unable to gauge and which probably varies from cell to cell?
I like your suggestion that one man may have been repsonsible for the attacks on London yesterday. Only Superman would have been capable of such athleticism, or, if the bombs were planted, of such a feat of pre-set timing on all the different trains and buses. But hell, maybe it was him. It'd make a great movie.
And speaking of your point about cinematic quality pix, isn't blowing the top off a doubledecker London bus pretty cinematic?
Conversely, how cinematic are the attacks they mount daily in Iraq (assuming it is AQ operating there)? Or is that different because it's not the West?
With the world's attention focussed on the UK for G8, surely this was an attack worthy, in publicity terms, of AQ?
Posted by: Claude de Bigny on July 8, 2005 12:17 PMNo, no, don't get me wrong, Sterling dear. I don't want to discourage you, I appreciate your work on this topic. As your tetchy reply implies, your post was not written for laughs -- I am a bit surprised about this, but never mind. I am even more pleased. As the good post-modernist I am sure you are, you will appreciate more than most, that in divining true textual meaning the impression on the reader is more important than the intention of the author.
What I find most endearing is your utter certainty on topics you cannot possibly be expected to know anything about, but of which you clearly fancy yourself as some sort of expert. Your reasoning is febrile, even jejune, but your atavistic need to comment disregards this entirely. You are spectacular.
You were spot on with your analysis of the recent election. Sadly, the human condition is one where we tend to over-estimate our powers of cognition. Successes embed in our memory, while our failures are brushed under the cerebral carpet; thus we are fated to repeat our errors, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce, as they say. You have moved a bit beyond the farce stage. I recall firm statements about a certain murder in New York definitely being carried out by muslim extremists, various analyses of patents per capita per country, an over-reliance on websites sponsored by Macdonalds as an authority on the worth of certain movies about Macdonalds, a lack of understanding about the various board and electronic versions of games entitled "Civilisation", and general non-stochastic inability to predict events in Iraq.
It might be that a chimpanzee with a typewriter might produce a sonnet, or at least a haiku, in a given circumscribed time period. But would you trust him to write another in the next? This is a question I ask myself about you. Whatever the answer, it remains fun to watch him try.
It was ETA ETA ETA! or maybe the IRA...IRA IRA IRA! No way in the world it could have been Islamists. Now vote for me! Again....
Posted by: Jose Maria Aznar on July 8, 2005 11:11 PMI'm not an expert on terrorism, Eurof, though I am reasonably well read. I am however a fairly keen observer of people and I think I have OBL pretty well pegged.
Strong horse, weak horse - AQ is working a media campaign and has been since the beginning. It mimicks Hollywood action films to win over its audience: spoiled, decadent Muslim boys - misogynistic if not gynophobic - in the Osama bin Laden/ Mohammed Atta/Peter Pan mold.
Claude - Yes, the sole useful imagery of the whole thing was the double decker bus. It's bad for the bombers, however, that worldwide there is probably no more beloved symbol of Great Britain than those big red albatrosses. If that's their best imagery, they're fucked. Al Qaeda kills people it can portray as "bad" to its larger Muslim audience. So it targets fraternizing, drunk westerners frolicking in a disco; cogs in the machine of global finance; the planners behind the U.S. military and American sailors who patrol the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea as if they own it. British commuters? I don't see it - there's no potentially positive symbolic theme in blowing up random commuters.
As for my lone gunman theory, you're forgetting that all the targets were moving objects located on the Circle Line or serving a Circle Line station. If he knew what time he wanted the attacks to occur, it would be a simple matter of setting the timers to go off at that time. He would not have even had to do much planning ahead - just planting his deadly little easter eggs wherever it was convenient, riding the Circle Line around and around (the one line in London, I believe, that does ever empty out during rush hour). He certainly wouldn't have armed the ones still in his possession, so if he ran out of time with bombs left over, no harm to him.
Has anyone heard what kind of explosive devices were used? My guess is that Underground devices were pipe bombs, probably made with gunpowder or maybe even crude black powder, perhaps wrapped in butcher's paper to make it look like a sandwich. My further guess is that it's going to turn out this was a relatively low-tech operation - a cheap digital timer, a short length of two inch pipe (or five centimeter pipe or whatever), two or three pounds of black powder and a bunch of carpet tacks or ball bearings. Maybe both. Double sided adhesive to stick it to the underside of a seat while our bomber pretends to be tying his shoe or looking for something he dropped. Hell, he may have left it on the floor in a ziploc bag with a banana next to it.
I don't know what was used on the bus, though - that looks to have been bigger.
And before you ask, Eurof, I actually am a bit of an expert on pipe bombs. Consequences of a childhood spent in the Pine Barrens - blowing shit up was a major local pastime.
Posted by: Sterling on July 9, 2005 01:03 AMSorry, I meant to write that the Circle Line is the one line that does NOT ever empty out during rush hour. My understanding and experience is that most of the lines begin on the urban fringe, quickly fill up as they penetrate the urban core, and then go back out toward the burbs mostly empty. A man who rode back and forth on the Morden line for three hours might be noticed. A man who rode for three hours on the Circle? He'd never be the last guy on the train, or anything like it.
Posted by: Sterling on July 9, 2005 01:19 AMDear Mr. Sterling,
Ello ello ello, I am Inspector Knacker of the Yard, heading the investigation into the recent bombing, and we here at the Yard are very impressed with your insights into the terrible events that overtook our great city not un-recently.
Forgive the semi-public format of this 'ere communication, but you are a hard man to track down. We would like to invite you to the Yard to share your insights into: pipe-bomb making, gained on the pine barrens; the mind of the arch-villain, Bin Laden; and passenger behaviour on the Circle Line, all of which have baffled the greatest minds in the station not un-recently.
You will be a-contacted by a Bobby in the near future, please 'ave your bags ready and packed.
Yours Sincerely,
Inspector Knacker of the Yard
I agree that it cannot possibly have been AQ, although some of your points are at least debatable (Are Spanish commuters obviously more evil to the AQ eye than British ones? or was Madrid indeed ETA?)
But when you ignore the mounting evdence that points to French guilt, I see you are no more than a rabid Francophile, Sterling, to the extent that you refuse to believe the evidence of your own eyes - should it seem to cast our old friend Monsieur Grenouille in a bad light.. The evidence for French puppeteering/responsibility is at least as strong as that for IRA responsibility. Chirac was looking pretty shifty when all the G8 leaders were standing behind Blair as he made his statement, wasn't he? Now why precisely was that? The loss of the Olympics to London is perhaps the most telling of the recent evidence. Add to that the proven French love of, and profiteering from, Saddam's regime, and their continued wish to be influential in the Middle East. This has been seriously undermined by the AngloSaxon invasions. Via the EU, the French subsidise the hate sermons regularly aired by the Palestinian Authority TV station, including the infamous "Jews are a deadly disease" "sermon" of a month or so back.
So, if anything, French hatred of our way of life, and their support for Islamism, and their hatred of the UK and Blair, leaving aside Bush, is far stronger than that of AQ itself! Blair's decision to celebrate the humiliation of the French navy at Trafalgar the other week can only have inflamed Chirac's already wavering sanity.
And as mentioned above, the Frogs have no qualms whatsoever about indulging in low-grade (as you would probably describe the London attack) illegal state violence against their perceived enemies, as Greenpeace found to their cost..
Why is it exactly, "Monsieur" Sterling, that you are so eager to distract attention away from the obvious guilt of the garlic-swilling, hairy-armpitted French?
Posted by: Claude de Bigny on July 9, 2005 01:20 PMDCI Knacker - I saw that show. Terrific concept, great execution, but it only lasted seven episodes. Not sure there's much profit in another go.
However, if your intent was to make light or condescend to my willingness to share my thoughts on the awful events in London, then you have misunderstood the nature of blogs and should return to the New York Times site posthaste.
By the way, I'm afraid I am not an expert on the Circle Line, or any other line in the London Underground. But I thought it was worthwhile to point out that if a man wanted to ride one line for several hours, perhaps to begin and end in the same place, he would be least likely to be noticed on a line that did not go back and forth, but rather round and round. I expect the London police already thought of this; but I had not (and have not) seen it mentioned anywhere else in the media and thought it was worth mentioning.
Likewise, I do not assume that my input is necessarily of any value whatsoever to police and intelligence services - I am telling the Memefirst readership what I think. On the internet the only qualification needed is whether a person writes interesting things
However, it is absurd to think that the police or intelligence services are omniscient. When everyone was offering their opinions on the Maryland/Virginia sniper case in 2002, my prediction, which can be summed up in six words - "No white van. Father and son" - was an awful lot closer to the truth than anything that came out of Charles Moose's mouth prior to the suspects being caught.
Anyone who has what they consider an insight should offer it up. A lot of people around the world have insight into Osama bin Laden. I think about him more than any other "celebrity", as I'm sure do many thousands of other people. And I suspect a great many of those thousands of people would have something interesting and unique to share with the rest of us, that is not part of the msm information stream.
So to sum up, my opinion is that these atrocities were committed by one to three men (probably just one), that they have at the very least no formal connection to Al Qaeda (and may be dedicated to an entirely different agenda), and that on the trains at least the bombs were likely very small and had been deposited there gradually during the morning, probably by one man, and set on timers to detonate at a specific time. I further suspect the bombs were crudely-manufactured pipe bombs, built by someone with no particular expertise in bomb-making.
Feel free to evaluate the accuracy of my statements in hindsight, or to offer criticisms or your own thoughts in real time. We live in an open source world.
Posted by: Sterling on July 9, 2005 07:15 PMDear Mr. Sterling,
We have been attempting to contact you for some time. Your specialist knowledge and skills may be invaluable to us in a matter of great national importance. There may be some risks involved, as in any covert activity in a hostile environment, but we would not ask you were it not clear that you are the only person who may be able to help us.
Please call us (703) 482-0623, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., US Eastern time. Tell us your location, and use the code word "Freedom Wigwam". An agent will pick you up and tell you more.
Good luck, agent Sterling.
Mr. Smith.
I remember that show, too. My legs are too hairy to play the Kate Jackson part.
Posted by: Sterling on July 9, 2005 09:49 PMThere's this from the Guardian: "Speculation about whether the bombers - now widely accepted to be part of, or linked to, al-Qaida - are British increased today" and the Daily News and FoxNews are reporting that one of the main suspects is "Mustafa Setmarian Nasar (search), the alleged mastermind of last year's Madrid railway bombings" -- re-reported from The Sunday Times, The Sunday Telegraph and the Mail on Sunday.
Because it may result that I am posting in haste, I don't expect Sterling to recant, but at the very least I would hope it would suffice to encourage him to suspend his charade of insight and analysis for a few days.
Posted by: 99 on July 10, 2005 12:30 PMWell, in Telegraph article, we find that:
And this:Ministers now believe that the bombings - which left at least 49 people dead in Britain's worst terrorist attack - were the work of a "very, very small number" of individuals who arrived from mainland Europe or North Africa on false passports within the past six months.
Both of those are completely in line with the first expectations I posted. I really don't want to go combing over this to determine my degree of rightness. It's grisly to make something so trivial out of this. You know what I posted. I know what I posted. Let's just leave it for awhile, say two weeks, and then come back to it. Posted by: Sterling on July 10, 2005 08:25 PMTheir search is being hampered because those who planted the bombs are believed to be "cleanskins", young operatives with no known terrorist links.
Sterling, I think I see -- your thesis would have been falsified, or you would only have been wrong in seeing no Al Quaida hand in all this, only if:
1) there had NOT been vast numbers of grizzled afghan veterans toting AK47s and black turbans had living in the UK (as plumbers?) for years planning the bombings, and
2) only terrorists who were known to the authorities had carried them out.
It seems like what what you know you wrote and what everyone else knows you wrote are in fact very different things.
In the meantime, I look forward to MORE speculation from you about the bombing in the next few days, not less. Don't give up and admit defeat so easily, especially to that silly sod 99. Honestly, it's like watching someone standing around letting himself get beaten to death with a wet lettuce; very dispiriting.
Posted by: eurof on July 10, 2005 09:27 PMSo, Sterling, you are saying that it is hasty to be arguing over this issue in the near term? Huh. Too bad such restraint didn't strike you about four days eariler.
Posted by: 99 on July 10, 2005 09:59 PMI wrote it in the first place because the common take being offered on television was so obviously false.
And Eurof, what I wrote - check for yourself - was this:
Small personnel requirement. The attacks could easily be the work of just one man, and I would be surprised if more than three were involved. Al Qaeda would have no problem delivering a much larger complement of men to partake in a London attack. The fact that the attacks occurred at the end of rush hour rather than at the middle tends to support that it was just one to three men.
wait, now AQ is a centralized insurgent force deciding when, where, and how many kg of explosive to be used for each attack? of course, entirely synchronized precisely by the genius OBL, who is tracking his media and mental effect on the minions of the world via his soused out G5? charting the stars for perfected effect. sterling, you've bought the BS hook, line, stinker. you give tremendous credit to the spoiled sob. give me a break. I am willing to bet mullah omar's missing eye that this is a group of overeducated british nationals, who've quite possibly never even been to afghanistan (because we all know under sterlings logic theyíd have to meet big OBL to get their precise commands), acting under the spell of a some hook handed cleric, a well spoken ìtheoristî or two, and a cadre of ëreal affected muslim mení who theyíll the carry the cause ofÖ which would also explain the idiocy of bombing edgware road. a disgusting tragedy all the while.
Posted by: Dave on July 11, 2005 09:13 PMDave, your syntax is confusing. I believe there is, still, an AQ hierarchy that includes both OBL and the Iraq AQ branch. I do not believe that the perpetrators of last week's bombing have any tangible relationship to this hierarchy. Assuming they're Muslims at all, the bombings look to have none of the trademarks of Al Qaeda attacks as I have understood them.
That is to say that the things I have most noticed about prior AQ attacks are almost entirely absent from the London bombings of last week.
I could be wrong - I want to be wrong - but I have seen nothing up 'til now to indicate that.
Posted by: Sterling on July 11, 2005 09:59 PMSterling-
I still think you're basing your conclusions on too little - "it was a relatively smallscale attack on a non-iconic target," you say, "so therefore it can't be AQ."
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe AQ have been so damaged by the war on terror that they are no longer capable of launching vast iconic attacks on the 9/11 scale. Maybe they have chosen to conduct low-level attacks alongside big iconic attacks. Maybe there is no strategy at all but individual cells act as they see fit. Who really knows at this stage?
A lot of people use "AQ" as shorthand for all Islamist terrorism.This might flatter the reality - AQ's scope and power is probably not as great as it was pre-9/11, and OBL's ability to control worldwide terror has probably been diminished - but on the other hand, it also reflects the desire of Islamists to be seen to be belonging to some overarching organistion, whether or not that organistion is as mighty as they would like us to believe.
Bear in mind also that AQ's professed aims shift - sometimes one hears that they want: 1. destruction of Israel, 2. US troops out of Arabia, 3. Spain returned to Islamic fold; whilst sometimes one hears they want the mass conversion of the West; sometimes the destruction of the West. Each of these aims would lead to a different terroristic strategy. If we don't know which aim they truly have, it's probably safest to assume they want to kill us all by whichever means come to hand..
You are surely right to question the almost-universal assumption that the London attack was AQ's work, but you are basing it upon laughably little actual evidence. It's your gut feel, based on the scale and nature of the target.
But I loved the Sherlock-like (or even Mycroft-like) opening to this thread, which, as much as the actual content, has sparked off much of the mockery you got.
Posted by: Hero von Esens on July 12, 2005 10:49 AMThe London police now believe this was the work of four young men, UK natives from the local Pakistani community. Who taught these boys such bloodyminded hatred? Who provided them with the vast quantities of military explosives found in their homes? Who gave them the idea of perpetrating this attack? Why did none of them apparently survive - was it suicide, or were they conveniently eliminated during their last ride on the tube?
It is possible that four college-age boys were able to do all this by themselves. It is even more likely that an al-Qaeda operative recruited them, trained them, armed them, and perhaps murdered them. While I would not go so far as to say these young men are also victims, for my sympathy for misguided souls is limited, I would speculate that the UK authorities are well on their way to sniffing out bigger fish.
Jame - it's possible that some of the four were not aware they were carrying bombs, or were not aware the bombs were timed to go off while in their possession. (They may have been told to place the bombs in specific outdoor locations where they would be detonated harmlessly for "symbolic" purposes.) Such a strategy WOULD be consistent with AQ - most of the 9/11 hijackers were not aware they were on a suicide mission, as an example.
But any who knew what they were doing are not victims.
Posted by: Sterling on July 13, 2005 04:49 PM"British anti-terror police executed a search warrant at a home Wednesday night in Buckinghamshire, north of London, in connection with last week's terrorist bombings, Aylesbury police have told CNN, but no arrests were made. Police are urgently addressing whether four British men suspected of carrying out the suicide attacks were working with a master bomber who may still be at large."
-CNN
sounds like Jame's horse is starting to pull away...
Posted by: Jim on July 14, 2005 02:21 AMwrt AQ goal #2 ("expel infidels from arabia"), undermining the "coalition of the willing" by punishing coalitition participants with homeland terror fits right in w AQ methods and madness.
Agent Sterling, your methodology, while successful for Agent Mulder, has utterly failed in our efforts to track down the perpetrators of the London bombings. You have been demoted. Please report to traffic duty immediately. Dont forget to pick up your orange vest, baton and whistle. And some sun screen, its hot out there.
Posted by: Skinner on July 21, 2005 02:57 PMskinner, I think you are being a bit rough on Sterling. Let's remember, just because someone aspires to be a member of some group, does not make them one. Sure, I understand that things are continuing to go on in London (I have to travel there in the next few weeks - YIKEES!), but I think it's a bit early to give anyone credit or blame for this garbage.
It all gets back to children that aren't raised by their parents seeking a group to feel a part of. Kind of similar psychology to the gang issues in the US, but at least gang members normally only (try at least) to shoot at one another. These folks aspire to greatness, and really should have read "How to win friends and Influence People" instead.
Posted by: Sanford on July 21, 2005 05:19 PM"It all gets back to children that aren't raised by their parents seeking a group to feel a part of."
What a silly assumption You're fired.
Posted by: Skinner on July 21, 2005 06:02 PMskinner, the loads in the UK that did the subways seem more to be disillusioned losers. It's the "LOVE ME DADDY" syndrome. I believe many parents today do not take an active role in raising their children, and the results are obvious in the disintegration of "society" as a whole. Sorry, but it's my $0.02, so get back to work slacker.
Posted by: Sanford on July 21, 2005 06:09 PMYes, its your $.02, but its completely naive and borderline moronic. People dont become terrorists because their parents dont raise them right, they become terrorists when they feel their people are being oppressed militarily, culturally and economically and they have no other options to fight back because all other options have failed.
The vast majority of Palestinian terrorists come from strong families who support them in their actions and celebrate their deaths as heroes. When young Muslims the world over witness the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, Palestians ejected from their homeland and forced to live in camps, and whole Afghani villages blown up by drones, the opportunity to exact some small revenge by bombing a Western target is seen as a way to help right a wrong, honor their dead and fight back the only way they can, since their rulers are so corrupt they collaborate with the oppressor.
Thats why Al Qaeda and Palestinian terror groups are so successful, can recruit members worldwide, and wont be defeated until the core injustices they perceive are reddressed.
Posted by: Skinner on July 21, 2005 07:09 PMI'd love to see some of those groups come to my neighborhood and try to recruit members. In fact, I'd love to see them try with my 4 year old, because he's got the support and intelligence required to see through the complete crap that blowing yourself up in the name of any god is.
You radicals are comic. Sorry Skinner, I'm sure you are a realy great guy or girl, but don't give me your ivory tower load of crap about the "social injustices of the world." Talk about moronic. Life is never fair, unless you accept the fact that you get what you get in life. And sorry, but praying 5 times, or 50 times a day isn't going to change that.
Furthermore, if you are so stupid as to think that by murdering innocent victims in the name of any god, then you deserve to get back in this life or the next for your transgressions.
As well, I would question your statement of how strong these Palestinian families are that laud their children blowing themselves up. Sorry, but there is a difference between strength and fanaticism. I applaud the Israeli's for crushing those that oppose them, and they make no appologies for it either. That gets a big thumbs up in my book. I just wish the USA had the cajones to roll through the middle east turning it into a big 7-11 and gas station.
KICK THEIR ASS, TAKE THEIR GAS.
Posted by: Sanford on July 21, 2005 08:19 PMI never said I aproved of it, but thems the facts. You dont like it, no one does, including myself. I am puzzled why you inlcude me as a radical. Its funny that you try to dismiss this notion as one of the Ivory Tower. Have you ever been to a Muslim country? I have. Your attitude "KICK THEIR ASS, TAKE THEIR GAS" is pretty much symetrical to theirs. If you get blown up in London next week, it will be thanks to that philosophy. Good luck.
Posted by: Skinner on July 21, 2005 08:49 PM"I'd love to see some of those groups come to my neighborhood and try to recruit members. In fact, I'd love to see them try with my 4 year old, because he's got the support and intelligence required to see through the complete crap that blowing yourself up in the name of any god is."
Life isnt fair? Your comprehesion of what is going on is so superficial its almost comical. Do you live in a detention camp? Have your family and friends been tortured or beaten by occupying army? Has your land been confiscated and your livyhood taken away? Probably not, last I heard Illinois was a pretty nice place to live. Its doubtful your kid, who lives in a nice house with a yard, his own room full of toys, TV, yummy food, has ever felt any real fear for his life, or for that of his loved ones. He also doesnt feel any hopelessness, or the imminence of a raid or a bulldozer razing his house. Thats what breeds terrorists. Not religion, not lack of parenting.
Posted by: Skinner on July 21, 2005 08:57 PMDeclassified: Sterling's super secret training video
Posted by: Agent RS on July 11, 2006 07:07 PM"Last year's July 7 London bombings, for example, were carried out by a homegrown cell whose leader had traveled to Pakistan. Authorities initially doubted any direct connection with al-Qaeda, but then, a year later, Qaeda number 2 Ayman Zawahiri released a video to al-Jazeera that included the suicide tape left by one of the London bombers."
Posted by: you were wrong about this too on August 11, 2006 05:01 PM