Terrorism in London--Round 2
The return of terrorism to London yesterday Thursday exactly two weeks after 7/7 suggests that this is going to be a long battle for Britain. Two teams of terrorists, two weeks apart, each using 3 subway bombs and 1 bus bomb. This suggests a co-ordinated plan to attack London over an extended period of time until Britain capitulates.
Running propaganda for the terrorists will be the BBC, which will not use the term terrorist in their broadcasts; and the Guardian, whose pro-appeasement propaganda is linked to elsewhere on this blog.
Hero of the day is John Howard, PM of Australia, who knows how to speak the truth in times of crisis:
 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.
If anyone doubts that Howard is correct, one might check the Counterrorism Blog:
The Algerian Salafist Group for Prayer and Combat (GSPC)--a known Al-Qaida affiliate group active in North Africa--has released a statement applauding the 7/7 suicide bomb attacks in London and calling for additional parallel terrorist operations. According to the document released on July 19:
During the days following the London attacks, many people appeared on various Internet sites and forums started screaming, shouting and condemning what happened while blaming the Muslims…As long as Britain remains in a state of hatred and disbelief, then terrorizing it is a duty because it has appropriated the responsibility of fighting and wounding the Muslims and stealing their natural resources. Also, it supports America, the Jews, the Arab oppressors, and everyone else who is fighting against Islam in the new crusader war against so-called terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, and against the mujahideen everywhere... It is incorrect to claim that [British] civilians are innocents since most of the men and women are considered combatants by Islamic law because general public surveys have shown that the majority of the British people support Tony Blair in his war against the Muslims and mujahideen.
Regarding the children and women, while children are indeed innocent civilians and should not be deliberately killed if they are recognized by the attacker as children; however, if it is difficult to distinguish children from other people surrounding them (i.e. in a group of people) then killing them is permitted...Islam has ordered us to terrorize our enemies and whoever denies that is an infidel himself. Terrorizing our infidel enemies is a legal obligation. Whoever says that Islam is not related to terrorism has committed an infidel act--terror comes from Islam.
Notice how exactly Al-Qaeda itself agrees with Howard: 1) They agree that the invasion of Afghanistan is part of why they want to bomb London. 2) They rebuke the BBC: they proudly call themselves terrorists, and insist that any Muslim who does not endorse terrorism is an infidel.
I close with this from former CIA Marc Ruel Gerecht:
Yet if one compares the number of Muslim volunteers who went to fight the Soviets (and let us assume that no more than 10,000 went, most of them after 1984, even though many analysts think the number of "Arab Afghans" was much higher) with the highest figures one hears for foreign holy warriors in Iraq (one to two hundred entering Iraq each month), the result is astonishing, and for would-be jihadists depressing. Traveling to Iraq from anywhere in the Arab world is easy. Language isn't a problem. Iraqi Sunni Arab fundamentalist groups are much better plugged into the larger Arab Sunni world than were their Afghan Islamist counterparts in the 1980s. The Syrian government, and probably others in the region, would love to help all comers. We should have seen by now thousands of holy warriors coming to Iraq. Suicide bombers have clouded our accounting by magnifying the individual commitment of each jihadist and the damage he can do.
We can only guess why Iraq has been so much less of a draw than Afghanistan. A reasonable guess, however, is that the Muslim, and especially Arab, world doesn't have its heart in this fight. Although Sunni Arabs rarely rose to denounce Saddam Hussein's slaughtering of Arab Shiites and Kurds, they knew full well the horrors of his rule. Although many are loath to say so publicly, they know the American invasion of Iraq and George W. Bush's rhetoric in favor of democracy have shaken the established order in the Arab world, and they are content to see it so.
W has sounded the trumpet for democracy--and the spectacularly inept bombers of yesterday's London strikes are not going to stop him.