Two weeks after four bombs killed 56 in the London tube system and aboard a bus, London was struck again today. This time reports indicate two explosions and, thankfully, no casualites.
LONDON (Reuters) - The explosions on London's transport system on Thursday look like an attempted carbon-copy of four attacks that killed 56 people two weeks ago and may be masterminded by the same group, security analysts said.
They put forward two main scenarios behind the latest blasts, which were much smaller than the previous ones, and appeared to have caused no fatalities.
The first, more benign explanation, was that the attacks were carried out by "imitative amateurs" intent on mounting a copycat strike by targeting three underground trains and a bus across the city, as in the earlier bombings.
The second, more worrying, was that the same group behind the suspected al Qaeda-linked attacks on July 7 had struck again, albeit with far less devastating effect.
That would show that, far from exhausting its strike potential, the group was capable of causing fresh havoc despite heightened security precautions in the British capital and a high state of alert in both the police and general public.
It also would show that the group could readily mobilise fresh operatives -- perhaps even would-be suicide bombers -- to follow the example of the four bombers who blew themselves up two weeks earlier.
Witnesses are reporting a wave of panic in the wake of the explosions, for which Londoners can hardly be blamed after the events of two weeks ago. Those poor people.
"I was in a middle carriage and the train was not far short of Warren Street station when suddenly the door between my carriage and the next one burst open and dozens of people started rushing through. Some were falling, there was mass panic.
Malkin has many links, as does the Counterterrorism blog. Jawa Report is hoping to update throughout the afternoon.
UPDATE: Via Power Line, Some great remarks from Australian PM John Howard in repsonse to a reporter.
Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.
Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.
And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.
Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?
When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?
When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.
Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.
I wonder if there will ever come a time when reporters questioning leaders about the invasion of Iraq and it's effect on terrorism will not only look foolish to the rest of us, but feel foolish to the reporter? There must be an old saying somewhere about the idiot always being the last to know that he is, indeed, the idiot.
I just don't know what it is.
Also posting: Mark in Mexico
No comments:
Post a Comment