How Much Is That Doggie?
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on July 2nd, 2007 in War on TerrorIf there was any doubt about how closely new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown would hew to Tony “bigger-than-a-poodle” Blair’s line on TWAT etc., I think he dispelled it by his remarks on Sunday:
Mr Brown told Andrew Marr on BBC One’s Sunday AM it was “clear that we are dealing, in general terms, with people who are associated with al-Qaeda”.
George Bush’s best fear-mongers couldn’t have put it any better.
Tony Blair, for all the myopia he displayed on the subject of Iraq and TWAT, never stooped to fear-mongering, as far as I can remember. And here’s Gordon Brown, barely out of the starting gates, and already out-Bushing Tony Blair.
Because what is abundantly clear is that what we saw in Britain over the last few days — between the two cars in London filled with “petrol, gas cylinders and nails” and the Glasgow airport incident — is a bunch of amateur wannabe terrorists. They may have been inspired by al Qaeda, or not. But certainly, and fortunately, they lacked the expertise to do any real damage:
Security experts said that neither the bomb materials nor the cellphone triggering device was particularly sophisticated. Nor, said Sajjan M. Gohel, a counterterrorism expert with the Asia-Pacific Foundation, did the attack “seem to be very well planned.”
The second car, by the way, was towed away from the spot it was left to explode in because it was illegally parked.
If this is the hand of al Qaeda, they obviously merged with the Keystone Cops while no one was looking. To say these jokers are “associated” with al Qaeda is probably the biggest fear-mongering stretch the British Prime Minister could pull under the circumstances. And the shameless bugger pulled just that stretch.
Watch him closely. I won’t be surprised at all to see him talking wildly about suitcase bombs one of these days. (For the record, weapons experts seem to be agreed that suitcase bombs are a zero probability terrorist threat.)
Brown is ably supported by his terrorism adviser:
Lord Stevens, Mr Brown’s new terrorism adviser, has said the attacks signalled a “major escalation in the war being waged on us by Islamic terrorists”.
He wrote in his column in the News of the World: “It is clear a loose but deadly network of interlinked operational cells has developed.”
That too is a bushel of blatant bullsh*t. All that is clear is that another group was inspired to amateur terrorism, a group that was long on intent but fortunately short on capability. That is bloody well not a “major escalation in the war being waged … by Islamic terrorists”. It is bloody well not evidence of “a loose but deadly network of interlinked operational cells”. (For a thoroughly contemptuous dismissal of this hype, see Larry Johnson’s post at TPM Café.)
When Brown goes “ruff ruff” about suitcase nukes, presumably Stevens will be right there going “woof woof” along with him. And then, presumably, they will ceremonially sniff each other’s asses.
But for anyone who’s strolling along Downing Street, going “How much is that doggie in the window? I do hope that doggie’s for sale!”, the answer seems to be: “Sorry, kiddo. This one’s bought already, and all paid for, too.”!
(Please note: only sporadic posts this week.)
JimC wrote:
The sophistication of the materials (See IRA IED bombing Manchester of 1996) is irrelevant and the sophistication of the triggering device can actually increase risk of failure (which apparently happened here). Furthermore the statement “[Nor] seemed very well planned” is questionable as the cars were only discovered after they failed to detonate. Seems that, had the short spark of electricity flowed from the cell phone trigger to the bomb, we’d be framing this attack much differently.
So a short spark is the difference between successful professional terrorists and noobs….that’s even more frightening….because of the fact that it doesn’t take much to cause real damage….so the only thing needed to have a linked network of terrorists is a spreading of radical ideology, the bombing and attacks are secondary, once the ideology has been established, the operatives willing to carry out unsophisticated but deadly attacks are all that’s needed.
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 10:51 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
When one of the London cars gets towed for illegal parking, and both London car bombs fail to go off, and the Glasgow airport car bursts into flames but does not explode, “not very well planned” seems to be a pretty reasonable verdict.
In any case, I’ll go with the security experts on this, if you don’t mind.
What is your source for this?
Obviously takes more than these people had. There is, apparently, some real expertise involved in getting a bomb to explode. That, apparently, is why al Qaeda, for example, spends a non-trivial amount of time training its terrorists in making bombs. That is, apparently, why most terrorist bombers test their bombs. Apparently, testing the bombs is part of what happens in a well-planned terrorist attack.
So maybe it’s not just “a short spark” that was the difference between what happened and a spectacular terrorist attack. Maybe it had something to do with training and expertise. So maybe it’s not frightening but reassuring. It’s not that easy to cause real damage. Intent is not enough, because capability remains a stumbling block.
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 12:45 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Here is one.
So again, I’m going back to the “spark” differential because…
So if the counter terrorism guys diffusing the bomb say it would have been bad, then I will go with those guy’s assesments…
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 12:57 pm ¶
matt wrote:
so here’s a chance for you to fake us all into thinking that you’re not a total fear-mongering tool for two seconds:
us media coverage of the uk bombs: measured, totally overblown, or over the top?
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 1:08 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I call bullshit on this.
What you said earlier was: what apparently happened here was that the sophistication of the triggering device was responsible for the bomb not exploding.
That’s what I asked you to substantiate,
You’ve come back with a stupid and thoroughly dishonest response: citing a story that tells us that the bombs failed to explode, period.
As for the rest of what you just said, do you really not understand any of what I wrote in #2?
No one is disputing that it would have been a spectacular attack had the bombs exploded.
If you go back and read #2 again, you’ll find I said so, in so many words.
So I’m not sure what victory you think you’ve just scored by now citing Peter Clarke saying the exact same thing.
The dispute is not over whether successful explosions would have constituted a spectacular attack. The dispute is over what it takes to pull off a successful spectacular explosion.
Your thesis was that these guys were just “a short spark” away from a successful spectacular explosion (whatever the hell that means). The idea you were pushing was that “it doesn’t take much to cause real damage”.
I spent most of #2 arguing that it takes a heck of a lot to pull off a successful spectacular explosion.
I cannot begin to imagine how you could have failed to understand that’s what I was saying.
In any case, it is obviously an exercise in perfect futility trying to engage with you. About this, or anything else. So I’m officially through with that.
So long!
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 1:24 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Honestly, I’ve only really been following this via Drudge (and Pat Dollard) and only caught a bit of the story on Foxnews for about 15 mins last night, so I really can’t gage it too well, but from what I have seen, compared to Paris Hilton coverage, its been measured….
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 1:26 pm ¶
matt wrote:
you are a fucking moron.
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 1:32 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Because I hadn’t been following that closely, because only through Drudge, or that I joked and said it was measured compared to Paris? Or just because….
What do you want me to say? I haven’t been paying that close attention to US media coverage on this topic in the last couple days….sorry, life happens while you’re busy making other plans.
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 1:53 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I call BS on your BS.
What part of “the devices failed to detonate the mixture of gas canisters” does not support my case?
Its been done, many times, with readily available materials by otherwise inexperienced people. I’m sure you can google the instructions for instructions fairly quick….the difficult part is carrying it out without being caught or blowing yourself up but as the story said, the bombs were in place and no one knew it. So I’m sticking with the just a spark away from being categorized as succesful bombers…failed cell phone detonators as the reporting said.
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 2:00 pm ¶
matt wrote:
all of the above.
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 2:03 pm ¶
matt wrote:
just like bush is two failed wars and a shit economy away from being categorized as a successful president?
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 2:06 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
That’s disconcerting….
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 2:06 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
That’s a good one…I actually laughed out loud :-)
(not mockingly either, actual chuckleness)
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 2:08 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Jim, you are in esteemed company. Yes, I think that highly of myself.
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 2:19 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I’m hoping she’s just mad at me today…maybe she will eventually respond again later…besides, she didn’t tell me to do something nasty with a duck, so there is hope.
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 2:44 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Ok, here could be the deciding evidence for you Sarabeth…just maybe…
ABC ran a video on their website showing an Al Qaida “how to” guide to use propane cylinders as IED’s. 5-6 of these things in a car, surrounded by nails, you have one giant grenade….
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 3:12 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Former Scotland Yard Detective John O’Connor’s comments on CNN today:
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 4:43 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Go to google video and search for propane exploding, a whole host of red necks showing different ways to make propane cans and cylinders explode including by fire. Not saying the Glassgow Jihadis weren’t a bit goofy in their approach but still could have exploded causing more damage but more importantly, John O’Connor might have searched google videos before giving such a definitive statement…perhaps the Glassgow attack was out of frustration because the car bombs failed….
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 8:28 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Also search for propane bomb, even more selections of brilliant amateur propane bombers in rural america…
Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 8:42 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Looks like I may have been right about something!
The Jury may still come back and slap me down but I’ll take it for now…
Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 12:34 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
The Jury might ponder the following:
if a news story says the Glasgow attack was conducted by the same two men who planted the London car bombs, does that validate the statement that “…perhaps the Glassgow attack was out of frustration because the car bombs failed…”?
Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 1:13 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
The Jury, knowing full well how fragmented my thoughts are conveyed, might conclude that my statement implied the failed car bombers were the ones frustrated…if not, then the Jury will henceforth slap me down…
Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 1:29 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
if anyone has any idea what sense that last comment makes, please let the rest of our readers know
Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 1:35 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Means, that those who committed the Glassgow attack were the same as those who were frustrated that their car bombs failed….oh just give it to me already, just one, just one thing….please o please….
Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 7:01 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
the english language is a dangerous weapon in the hands of JimC.
when he said “…perhaps the Glassgow attack was out of frustration because the car bombs failed…” apparently he didn’t really mean that frustration had anything to do with it. all he meant was that the same guys did both attacks.
whether the Glasgow attack had been planned long before the London attacks failed, or whether it was a spur-of-the-moment bad idea born of frustration, JimC wins olympic gold because it was the same guys.
this dude is funnier than he’ll ever be able to appreciate.
Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 7:20 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Well, if I can’t be right, I might as well be funny….
Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 9:17 pm ¶