Another explanation for the crash may be gasoline fumes. If there were large cans of gas in the car, the fumes could have intoxicated the driver easily.

Amateur.

Gasoline and propane in high concentrations won't explode, rather snuff themselves out. They both have a rather narrow range where they're actually explosive.

Thank goodness they are still as dumb as posts.

"but said it was too early to speculate about who could have been responsible."

Anyone mind if I speculate about those responsible? It starts with an "M" and I don't mean morons. Well, they are morons but that's not the word I had in mind.

Mind if I join you in similar speculation?

I can't think of anyone else with a Jones for blowing up nightclubs in London.

Well, maybe the Real IRA (or whatever the remaining losers are called) might have given it a go, but they wouldn't have been quite so stupid.

10:30EST and MSNBC.com has already removed as the top story and replaced it with "3 Months, 329 Killed." Earlier the headline was about the "alleged" car bomb.

Tonight on Hardball Matthew's will discuss the lack of a real threat from the attempted car bombing, if at all, and Olbermann will question the timing.

One of these days, these so called "morons" and "amateurs" are going to get lucky again, and the same people downplaying things now will be jumping up and down about why we didn't connect the dots.

Lord help us.

On the other hand we did have that nail-bomber a while back who was going after gays, jews and the usual bugbears. He turned out to be a common or garden racist nutcase so maybe an open mind would be appropriate.

Still, I certainly wouldn't put any money against.

"One of these days, these so called "morons" and "amateurs" are going to get lucky again."

Yes, they are. But I still wonder why refusing to be terrorised is considered to be a poor response to attempted terrorism.

The Brits are fighting them in Iraq so that they don't have to fight them in London! Oh, wait a minute...

I miss the old flypaper theory. It was such a useful right-wing talking point until terrorists started proving it wrong.

Not terrorized, Rafar, diligence and awareness would be nice. Instead I see glibness and an attempt to quickly dismiss, at least here in the States.

One of these days, these so called "morons" and "amateurs" are going to get lucky again

We've killed quite a large percentage of the brain trust.

Why do you think they've turned to Iran for state level technical support?

Meanwhile, blogs on the left, incliding that jackass Larry Johnson, are already minimizing and downplaying the potential threat. Terrorism, what terrorism?

We've killed quite a large percentage of the brain trust.

Actually, we're creating more and better bombmakers every day in Iraq. It's just a matter of time before they make it overseas.

Random Guy:

I thought an era of peace, love and understanding would erupt when Bush's poodle stepped down. Silly Jihadis sure have a strange way of saying "I love you."

Actually, we're creating more and better bombmakers every day in Iraq.

Naturally you can provide a source for this assertion.

I thought an era of peace, love and understanding would erupt when Bush's poodle stepped down. Silly Jihadis sure have a strange way of saying "I love you."

Why? They hate the Brits for their foreign policy, which hasn't changed with the leadership (yet).

Naturally you can provide a source for this assertion.

Sure, just like you can provide data for this statement: "We've killed quite a large percentage of the brain trust."

Within a couple of days I am sure the MSM will take this tack, ie...nothing to see...move along...nothing happened.

It is inconvenient for many on the left when things such as this occur.

Getting out of Iraq will not solve this problem. Running only will embolden them who hate everything we and the West stands for.

Sure, just like you can provide data for this statement

No problem.

Your turn.

Purple Avenger:::

YES. George W Bush will leave office a HERO

nothing the liebrals can do now we are verging on VICTORY

"Rafar":::I still wonder why refusing to be terrorised is considered to be a poor response to attempted terrorism

FOOLHARDY to take risks today

we NEED security

the govt NEEDS the means to distroy the cells in are midst

if your LAW-ABIDING and not a sex deviant then whats the problem with oversite???

if your LAW-ABIDING and not a sex deviant then whats the problem with oversite???

From such simple questions are mighty tyrannies made.

Because the founding document of our country places limits on the power of the government, Karl.

We fought a cold war for seven decades against the Soviets, and one of the things that made us better than them is the idea that we are free from unnecessary and unlawful government intrusion.

If we're not better than the Soviets in that respect, then come right out and say so. Only then can you start to make the argument that, if we don't have anything to worry about, we should let the government do whatever it wants to do.

If, on the other hand, we are better, then, dammit, we're better, and we're not going to go down that road.

If you want to change the Constitution, go ahead; it has been done nearly thirty times in the centuries since it was drawn up. Until then, government needs to follow the rules.

Also: this London car bomb thing raises the same question raised by Madrid, Fort Dix, JFK, and the earlier London bombing: if the whole idea is that we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, someone in charge needs to realize that this strategy isn't working.

Random Guy:

Why? They hate the Brits for their foreign policy, which hasn't changed with the leadership (yet).

What part of Clinton's foreign policy incited their tender feelings on 9/11? Remember that is when America was L-O-V-E-D by all.

A withdrawal from the entire Islamic world by the countries of the West will not be sufficient for the beheader set. The Jihadi message has beenand is: Submit to us and our version of Islam or die.

What part of Clinton's foreign policy incited their tender feelings on 9/11? Remember that is when America was L-O-V-E-D by all.

Wow, you really have no clue about foreign policy, do you. Who says that America was loved by all before 9/11? Not me, and no liberals that I know.

What part of Clinton's foreign policy incited their tender feelings on 9/11?

why did clinton let osama walk??? I'll tell you,,,

he was not just SOFT on terror

he SUPPORTED terror in order to make govt LARGER and more INTRUSIVE!!!

Oh. My. God.

I can't believe that you're blaming the government intrusions of the past six years on Clinton. Oh, wait. Yes, I can, because you don't seems to have much grasp of reality, Karl.

Clinton has been out of office since 2001. Will you try to wrap your mind around that fact?

Also: back off on the punctuation marks. One question mark or one exclamation point gets the job done as handily as thirty-seven.

RG:

From the tenor of your posts I've discerned that you believe that it is American reaction to terrorism post-9/11 that creates the necessary 'breeding ground" for the mad Jihadi. It has been a meme of the Left that they (provoked freedom fighters) only hate us because we have Chimpy McHalibuton as president. In this line of thinking, Clinton and his administration were a font of wisdom, moderation and caused nothing but admiration and goodwill to flow from the Middle East. Once the gawdawful Decider is gone, we can go back to being loved.

Correct me if I am mistaken. Please illuminate me with your vastly superior knowledge of foreign policy.

wjo:

You're arguing with RandomGuy as if he's saying something opposed to what you're saying. Your point seems to be that anti-American sentiment existed in the Islamic world before Bush 43 became president.

Random guy is saying the same thing:

Who says that America was loved by all before 9/11? Not me, and no liberals that I know.

You seem to want him to make some specific stereotypical Progressive argument that you have in your head, but, when he doesn't, you keep on arguing as if he had.

Also: this London car bomb thing raises the same question raised by Madrid, Fort Dix, JFK, and the earlier London bombing: if the whole idea is that we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, someone in charge needs to realize that this strategy isn't working.

Doc

Another perfectly reasonable explanation is that these attempts leaked through our efforts to destroy Islamic fanaticism because we are not fighting them (islamic terrorists) hard enough or effectively enough. I have seen precious little evidence that argues that a more conciliatory approach to these killers will end their war on the West and more than sufficient evidence that argues for total war against them would have a more beneficial effect on the world in general and the USA in particular.

My argument, iconoclast, has never been that we need to be more conciliatory. Rather, I see the United States as being much like a guy who's trying to protect his family from an angry mob by going out into the yard and taking them on out there. All someone has to do is walk around him and step through the front door, and the ball game's over.

(For those keeping score at home, in my parable, the front yard is Iraq and the front door represents our seaports and airports.)

It looks like the terrorists have decided to step through Great Britain's front door. What good is standing out in the front yard doing now?

Umm...I'm still waiting Random Guy. All I hear is the sound of crickets chirping.

Umm...I'm still waiting Random Guy. All I hear is the sound of crickets chirping.

Apologies, PA, I have a decent article to support my argument, but when I copy in the link CY's spam filter barfs on anything with "com" in it and won't let me post. My knowledge of HTML tags is rudimentary (yeah, I can pull off italics, but that's about it). Any help here?

Doc:

Thanks for carrying water for RG. I'm willing to give my interlocuteurs the benefit of the doubt and not think them evil. Its just that so many Lefties emote and do not reason.

It has been a meme of the Left that they (provoked freedom fighters) only hate us because we have Chimpy McHalibuton as president.

This is not my argument. We were disliked well before GWB, and before Clinton, GHWB, Reagan, Carter, etc.

I'm not for a more conciliatory strategy, but for a more effective one than occupying Iraq and attempting to build a wellspring of democracy in that godforsaken place.

Just to prove that there's thinking here and not the blind kneejerk response your own ideological filter seems to expect, I would say that I *could* be convinced that occupation might be sensible if we backed it up with the proper resources -- a draft and 3/4 million troops to get the job done. I'll leave it up to you if the price is worth it.

If we're not willing to do that, then I don't see the sense in staying. It doesn't mean that we don't fight terrorism, it just means that we don't try to solve it through occupation of an islamic country.

CY's spam filter barfs on anything with "com" in it and won't let me post.

Seems to work fine for IBM's web site. IBM.COM

Okay, I'll try again:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070619/ts_afp/iraqunrestarab

This is the same AFP that faked the story that ignited the Intifada, right?

I particularly liked this quote:

Iraq has overtaken Afghanistan as an ideal training ground for Jihadists to export their battle across and beyond the Middle East, experts say.

They seem to be implying that Iraq is indeed the "right war" to be fighting if we want to fight terrorism.

We need to fight terrorism. You and I both agree on that. Does our presence in Iraq create terrorists or reduce their numbers? I don't read that article as saying that we're fighting the "right war" in Iraq. It says to me that our presence there just creates more terrorists. Like an infection, you can treat the symptoms or treat the cause. I want to treat the cause.

"Doc Washboard":::

some dont like my writing stile,,, or could it be truth HURTS

clinton had no convictions and morales. terrorism? who cares unless its usefull to ME ME ME

George W Bush shoots straight,,, moral compass,,, convictions,,, values,,, sees mens SOUL

he looked into the bowls of terrorism and said NO MORE,,,

what does he get for taking a STAND? 27% approval ratings!!! fairy pants like YOU and the MSM distort the truth to misleed the POPULACE

It says to me that our presence there just creates more terrorists.

And our presence in say...a country with fiercely independent populace...such as Afghanistan won't, right?

What part of this paragraph don't you understand

The presence of Saudi, Jordanian and Yemeni volunteers in the besieged Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared in north Lebanon, as well as arrests in Jordan and Saudi Arabia of Jihadists coming from Iraq illustrate this.

They're saying we've got an apparently very effective "honey pot" drawing them in from everywhere. I find that an attractive situation.

The article DOES NOT say one way or another about the dynamics of internal resistance. If you think it does, please quote the exact passage. Read the actual words written, not what you'd like the written words to say.

Karl:

You're saying nothing of note here. It's a litany of talking points dredged up from Hannity, Rush, and various half-witted blog posts by other people. I'm wondering, for example, what you mean by this:

sees mens SOUL

Is this what you're talking about, Karl?

At one point Bush looked at his Secretary of State and said (with a suitable Texas twang) "Powell, I looked into Putin's eyes and I saw his soul" to which Powell replied: "Mr. President, I looked into President Putin's eyes and I saw the KGB".

"Not terrorized, Rafar, diligence and awareness would be nice. Instead I see glibness and an attempt to quickly dismiss, at least here in the States."

Well, that may be what it looks like in the States, but it is an inaccurate impression.

"From the tenor of your posts I've discerned that you believe that it is American reaction to terrorism post-9/11 that creates the necessary 'breeding ground" for the mad Jihadi. It has been a meme of the Left that they (provoked freedom fighters) only hate us because we have Chimpy McHalibuton as president. In this line of thinking, Clinton and his administration were a font of wisdom, moderation and caused nothing but admiration and goodwill to flow from the Middle East. Once the gawdawful Decider is gone, we can go back to being loved.

Correct me if I am mistaken."

OK, you're mistaken. Jihadis hate us for things like having large numbers of troops in their holy places (mostly removed now), forcing a viscious sanctions regeime on Iraq, and generally propping up dictators in their countries and supressing Islamic movements there. This has been going on long before Bush, long before Clinton in fact.

The difference is that Bush turned up the heat.

My argument, iconoclast, has never been that we need to be more conciliatory. Rather, I see the United States as being much like a guy who's trying to protect his family from an angry mob by going out into the yard and taking them on out there. All someone has to do is walk around him and step through the front door, and the ball game's over.

Doc

At the risk of arguing by analogy--a perilous task at best--I would suggest that your analogy reflects the defensive posture that you appear to desire. Our (USA) posture is, instead of waiting for the (organized) mob at our house, is to project force to the mob's home ground and force them to fight there instead of in our front yard.

But PLEASE let's not argue about the analogy. It is particularly pointless and irritating. Regarding how the WoT strategy has come out, we simply have to agree to disagree on this. I firmly believe that history has proven the value of protecting our country on foriegn soil--not USA soil. And, despite that fact, there is no assurance that this strategy is perfect--only that it is superior to a defensive and semi-isolationist strategy or a conciliatory strategy once war has begun. There is little that the principled anti-war folks have said that proves to to me this strategy is the wrong one at this time.

That the tactics have been F#$#-up is beyond refute. But again, if you study war, fubar'd tactics have been more the norm than the exception.

Read the actual words written, not what you'd like the written words to say.

Take your own advice, PA. Let's re-examine the paragraph you quoted, together with the paragraph that immediately preceded it:

The new generation of Islamist militants in Iraq are more battle-hardened than their veteran anti-Soviet counterparts from Afghanistan, and the export of their Muslim "holy war" to calmer Arab countries has become a phenomenon.

The presence of Saudi, Jordanian and Yemeni volunteers in the besieged Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared in north Lebanon, as well as arrests in Jordan and Saudi Arabia of Jihadists coming from Iraq illustrate this.

Did you read the word "export" there? I did. That's the opposite of the "honey pot" you seem to wish Iraq to be.

Hell, even the paragraph you quoted says "arrests in Jordan and Saudi Arabia of Jihadists coming from Iraq". Read the words in front of your face.

That's the opposite of the "honey pot" you seem to wish Iraq to be.

If they're being "exported", then obviously they're there and available to be killed.

Iconoclast,

You write that you "firmly believe that history has proven the value of protecting our country on foriegn soil--not USA soil."

As has been pointed out again and again, this is not like other wars in U.S. history. There is not one enemy. We can't spot the movements of huge masses of troops or the gathering of enemy fleets.

The enemy doesn't even come from one country. First Afghanistan. Then Iraq. Now Iran. There are doubtless thousands of other jihadis from other nations (not all of which are even in the Middle East) who are waiting to take a crack at us. So which foreign soil are we going to fight on, and what makes you think that the jihadis will be so obliging as to always meet us there?

If they're being "exported", then obviously they're there and available to be killed.

The question isn't whether there are jihadists in Iraq. No one is disputing that. The question is whether Iraq is "honey pot" that attracts terrorists to a place where we can kill them, or a breeding ground that creates more jihadists who will go on to attack American interests in other parts of the world.

As has been pointed out again and again, this is not like other wars in U.S. history. There is not one enemy. We can't spot the movements of huge masses of troops or the gathering of enemy fleets.

Doc

You are certainly right about this. Otoh, military history teaches that many, if not most, wars are not fought like earlier wars. They are always asymetric in one way or another. The reason our ideologial enemies choose to fight in this manner (distributed, non-state actors, guerrilla in nature, eschewing old-fashioned "rules of war" in favor of using any and all available force to impose their will, etc.) is just for the reason you state--our fighting strategies and doctrines (were? are?) misaligned to the battle at hand.

I don't believe that aligning our strategies to successfully address this challenge is an impossible task. There is no perfect offense and the jihadi approach to war has many weaknesses that we are exploiting, though whether that is enough for us to win certainly can be debated. If we wish to win--defined as effective elimination of the jihadi threat throughout the world--then we have to find that winning combination of strategy and tactics and actually use it. Otherwise the West will find that the jihadis have successfully imposed their will on us, to our detriment.

So which foreign soil are we going to fight on, and what makes you think that the jihadis will be so obliging as to always meet us there?

Wherever they are, we should take the fight to them. Not allow them any safe haven, if at all possible. Because from that safe haven, they will attack us...as past events have proven true. We still may have to fight on US soil, but by taking the fight to them whenever possible we minimize the likelihood of that happening.

"Wherever they are, we should take the fight to them. Not allow them any safe haven, if at all possible. Because from that safe haven, they will attack us...as past events have proven true. We still may have to fight on US soil, but by taking the fight to them whenever possible we minimize the likelihood of that happening."

The problem with this reasoning is that the result of our interventions since 2001 has been, without exception, the creation of failed states.

Afghanistan : Already a failed state in most ways, still a failed state after intervention, but a more failed one than before.

Somalia : Was working its way out of being a failed state (albeit towards an Islamic one) now a full on failed state again.

Iraq : Stable and secular-ish, but now a failed state.

Failed states are precicely the safe havens these groups want, along with a nice juicy load of outrage at the occupiers (fair or not occupiers are much more carefully scrutinised and tend to lose progeganda wars).

So, our response is counterproductive. We go into areas that are bad and make them 10 times worse.

The problem with this reasoning is that the result of our interventions since 2001 has been, without exception, the creation of failed states

There are several problems with your reasoning. First, even if you were correct in assuming that the ultimate result of taking war to our enemy was causing a failed state--an erroneous conclusion but one let's cede for the sake of argument--that is no reason to turn our own soil into a battleground. A present danger supercedes the uncertain potential of a future danger--in plain terms, we have to be around in the future in order to worry about it. Wise policy will attempt to ameliorate future danger AFTER the present danger is resolved (think Marshall Plan, for example). But concerns about the infinite universe of future possibilities is no reason for current paralysis.

But I think you are laboring under the misconception of a failed state. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran are definitely not failed states. Iran is an enemy state. Afghanistan and Iraq are battleground states--but overall functioning despite being the front lines against jihadi fanaticism. Gaza might be a much better example of a failed state; West Bank and Lebanon too.

So, our response is counterproductive. We go into areas that are bad and make them 10 times worse.

You cannot possibly believe this. Do you really think that the current Iraq is 10X worse than it was under Saddam and his merry gang of torturers and genocidal maniacs? Afghanistan is 10X worse than under the misogynistic and sadistic Taliban? If you truly believe this, then your facts are so unreal that reasoned discussion with you is impossible--which would be a shame.

iconoclast, what I've read is that poppy production is greater than ever in Afghanistan, and that the Taliban--the group we ostensibly evicted in 2001--is regaining strength. Kharzai is losing control of his own territory. What makes any of this a success?

iconoclast, what I've read is that poppy production is greater than ever in Afghanistan, and that the Taliban--the group we ostensibly evicted in 2001--is regaining strength. Kharzai is losing control of his own territory. What makes any of this a success?

Doc

I don't really care about the poppy production there. As long as there are people who have to self-medicate/use recreational drugs, there will be suppliers. Unfortunate, but not a measure I care that much about regarding our war on jihadi terror.

wrt Afghanistan, my reading is that while there is still conflict the Taliban is being defeated--the recent pre-emptive spring offensive by coalition troops has been successful as far as I can tell.

Pure speculation, but I wonder if the poppy production increase is a direct result of continued Taliban defeats. Greater tranquility would enable greater production of poppy. And if the Kharzai government is winking at poppy production while it fights the Taliban...ok with me.

"Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran are definitely not failed states."

I never said Iran was a failed state. Afghanistan is a failed state in that the government only controls the capital city. Most of the region knows no state.

To suggest that Iraq is not a failed state leads me to wonder what you think a failed state is. The people who define the words and rate the countries in their index rather disagree with you, but who are hey to disagree.

" Do you really think that the current Iraq is 10X worse than it was under Saddam and his merry gang of torturers and genocidal maniacs? Afghanistan is 10X worse than under the misogynistic and sadistic Taliban? "

Like I said, Afghanistan seems to exist in a perpetual failed-state mode, similarly to Somalia. In fact, Afghans seem to have a rather different conception of what makes a state to us.

And in terms of not providing secure bases for Jihadists, Iraq is 10 times worse than it was under Saddam, yes. If you remember, that is what we were talking about;

"Wherever they are, we should take the fight to them. Not allow them any safe haven, if at all possible. Because from that safe haven, they will attack us...as past events have proven true. "

They had no safe haven in Iraq before we got there, now they live in the anarchic bosom of a failed state.

The question is whether Iraq is "honey pot" that attracts terrorists to a place where we can kill them, or a breeding ground that creates more jihadists who will go on to attack American interests in other parts of the world.

Sure, but so far I've seen nothing cited to support the breeding ground view other than repeated assertion.

Indeed, things like the awakening suggest that if there were a breeding ground effect in the past, it is now being tamped down hard by those who wield influence.

They had no safe haven in Iraq before we got there, now they live in the anarchic bosom of a failed state.

Pretty poisonous bosom, Iraq. And it is not a sanctuary for rest&training by any stretch of a reasonable imagination.

But since you appear convinced--absent of any sort of facts--that the current situation in Iraq and outside of Iraq is 10X worse than with Saddam Hussein in charge, we have little to dicuss going forward. Pity.

"Indeed, things like the awakening suggest that if there were a breeding ground effect in the past, it is now being tamped down hard by those who wield influence."

As mentioned, the only reason the Sunni tribes put up with Al-Q was because they wanted their help in fighting the US. They were always going to slaughter them when their usefulness ran out.

"Pretty poisonous bosom, Iraq. And it is not a sanctuary for rest&training by any stretch of a reasonable imagination."

Yes, it certainly is a vile place to operate, but within a well ordered state it is almost impossible to operate. In Iraq they gain control of whole areas, don't they? Sure they get moved on, but they just set up camp somewhere else.

http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_9_28_06.htm

"But since you appear convinced--absent of any sort of facts--that the current situation in Iraq and outside of Iraq is 10X worse than with Saddam Hussein in charge, we have little to dicuss going forward."

I am confused. I never said anything of the sort, as I explicitely stated twice before. I suggest that, in terms of terrorists, Jihadis and Al-Q, Iraq is significantly worse than before the invasion. Whether the political situation, refugee, civilian death rate, women's rights, freedom of speech, religion or conscience are all better or worse is irrelevant to the point (though I would suggest that only freedom of conscience and freedom fof speech have improved).

My point was restricted to terrorist operations, specifically Al-Q in Iraq. Since there were basically no Al-Q operations in Iraq before the invasion, and now they not only bomb a couple of times a day, they even control territory. If we admit to, say, one Al-Q strike in Iraq per day (lowballing it a ways) then for it to be 10 times worse, we would have expected, in 2002, to see 3 attacks a month.

I doubt that we would see 3 Al-Q attacks a month globally before 2001.

Of course, if you disagee, you are welcome to compile the numbers from your most favoured sources.

"Pity."

Only if you respond to stuff that I didn't actually write.