Some great advice on how to start your own business online! 
For more information please visit

Terror attacks hit London

Breaking news — terrorists have bombed London's transportation system. The Associated Press reports:

Three explosions rocked the London subway and one tore open a packed double-decker bus during the morning rush hour Thursday. The blasts killed at least two people and injured about 190 in what a shaken Prime Minister Tony Blair called a series of "barbaric" terrorist attacks.

Blair said it was clear the attacks were designed to coincide with the opening of the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland. The prime minister said the meeting of world leaders would continue but that he would return to London.

"Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilized nations throughout the world," said Blair.

A group calling itself "The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe" posted a claim of responsibility for the blasts, saying they were in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
LGF links to a UK aggregator site with plenty of posts. Instapundit also has a huge link roundup.


Anonymous said...

We bring our military right to their doorstep, and Al-Qa'ida still opts to attack defenseless civilians. Typical. 

Posted by Dave

Anonymous said...

Wake up Dave. This isn't the NHL playoffs. It's war.

Firstly, al-Qaida IS attacking "our" military.

Secondly, as a magnificently weak, tiny, poor, scattered, divided outfit, AQ has no choice but to hit its enemies' most vulnerable targets. Sorry, but it just doesn't work to focus on the hardest targets.

Be assured, though, that if AQ only had a few aircraft carriers, cluster bombs and the jets to deliver them, they'd come out and fight like real men fair and square. 

Posted by Colonel Clink

Anonymous said...

Colonel Clink are you kidding? Do you actually think they would fight "fair and square"? Any "real man" would not cowardly hide in the general population and purposely "sucker punch" innocent women and children with dirty bombs. They won't even show their faces when they decapitate the average contractor or citizen.

So when you say they are attacking our military, you should point out that our military is being attacked only about 30% of the time. The rest of the attacks are focused on various populations of law abiding citizens.

So to suggest that they are men or fair is just ignorant.

If they had aircraft carriers or jets they would STILL attack the most populated areas because, as they (al-Qaida) said, this war will not be over until all infidels are dead, period. That includes me, you, my kids, your kids, my grandparents, your grandparents and every Christian and non-Allah believing person on this planet.

What part of that do people not get? THEY WANT ALL OF US DEAD. No-one will be spared. No matter how innocent. They would kill a pregnant American woman just because she's carrying an American child.

That's the truth. And if you don't believe that, then let's just keep doing things the "politically correct way" and America will not last much longer.

The only way to stop this is to profile. There, I said it. You can bet your ass if these attacks were proven to be carried out by white males, then every airport in the world would search EVERY white male that came through their terminal.

But instead we are trying to be "fair" by not profiling any specific race. I mean my grandmother might be carrying a nail file or something so why not do a full cavity search on her. But let Abu Mullah go right though with a nod. Otherwise he might sue. 

Posted by Chris K.

Anonymous said...

What Chris K.  said. Every last word of it. 

Posted by langtry

Anonymous said...

It's telling that American militarists like Chris K and langtry see the conflict in Iraq in terms of manhood or lack thereof.

This shows that their support for American militarism is rooted partly, at least, in a belief that their identity as males is at issue.

The jihadists share their view on that, only they add a religious overlay to the macho wish fulfillment.

One difference between the jihadists and American militarists, is that for the vast majority of American psychos, it's a TV war. A psychodrama in a far away place. I get the feeling their views are based on the expectation that in about 90 minutes, we'll shoot the last pimple-faced, gap-toothed bad guy, save the girl and ride off into the sunset. 

Posted by Colonel Clink

Anonymous said...

Langtry is a woman, so her views on this issue are presumably not rooted in her "identity as male". 

Posted by GaijinBiker

Anonymous said...

The data are in: Racial profiling doesn't work and, for reasons that should be obvious, it's even counterproductive.

David Harris, a law professor a the University of Toledo says this:
``There is an ingrained belief that the right way to police and to go where the crime is is to go and focus and target minorities, but it just doesn't turn out to be true. The numbers do not support it. And the result is, there has been a breakdown of trust. And trust is central to the success of police because police today know that they cannot do the job of cutting crime alone. They need the support of the community. And if they don't have it, that's going to hurt everybody, not just the people who are profiled erroneously, but the general officer out there on his job, her job, trying to cut crime is going to be hurt by this because he won't have the trust of the community.``

When the U.S. Customs Service reformed their search procedures to eliminate racial, ethnic and gender bias in their search activity while instituting stronger supervisor oversight for searches, they were able to conduct 75% fewer searches without reducing the number of successful searches for contraband carrying passengers. And, the hit rates were essentially the same for 'Whites', 'Blacks' and 'Hispanics'. This means that by eliminating racial profiling, the Customs Service was more efficient and equally likely to catch passengers carrying contraband while reducing the number of innocent people who were subjected to the indignity of a search by three-quarters.

Even George Bush knows it doesn't work and understands why it's counterproductive. Here's what he said about it: ``Too many of our citizens have cause to doubt our nation's justice when the law points a finger of suspicion at groups, instead of individuals. Earlier today, I asked John Ashcroft, the Attorney General, to develop specific recommendations to end racial profiling. It is wrong and we will end it in America.’’

And...ChrisK says that the war will not be over until Al Qaeda kills every non-believer; I don't think that's been one of the groups goals at all, though it has many affiliates and it's possible that they have some Ann Coulter types around who have said such things. But suppose it were true, the idea that if Al Qaeda had aircraft carriers they would attack civilians is still bogus.

If the ``war'' between Al Qaeda and the U.S. coalition were a military engagement, AQ would be forced to use a military strategy, which would include defense, as well as offense. (At present, AQ has no defense, only offense.) In order to defend its aircraft carriers, it would need to focus on attacking the U.S. submarines and port facilities that would be targetting its fleet.

As Col. Clink aptly points out, war isn't a primarily a psychodrama, even though it may seem a lot like one as covered by CNN.

ChrisK's call to single out people who look like they may be muslim or people who have Arab-sounding names is laughable, but his suggestion that the jihadist pose a serious threat to America's survival is just plain wacko.

ChrisK writes: ``That's the truth. And if you don't believe that, then let's just keep doing things the "politically correct way" and America will not last much longer.''

Why does he have so little faith in the power of freedom and the resiliance of a people who know the sacrifices required to maintain liberal democracy, civil liberties and rule of law? Why does he have so much faith in the power of terrorists who have no coherent ideology, very little money, even less popular support and really bad PR instincts?


Posted by bunkerbuster

Anonymous said...

Langtry is a woman, Gaijinbiker reveals. So my comment manhood being at issue in the war on terror must look really stupid. Actually it was stupid anyway, and so I'm accepting a demotion to Major as an act of contrition.

Sorry Langtry.

I still think missile envy and relative manliness is a really stupid, but unfortunately common, starting point for geopolitical analysis. 

Posted by Major Clink



Powered by Blogger.