Some good news from the War on Terror:
An al Qaeda plot to blast London was dramatically foiled by police today.
Seven hundred police swooped in a series of 6am raids in the capital and the Home Counties. They found half a tonne of fertiliser explosives – enough for a series of terror “spectaculars”.
The terrorist suspects arrested by police are believed to have chosen “soft targets” for bombings including pubs and clubs. One of the suspects being held had a job at Gatwick Airport, immediately raising concerns over airlines and passengers.
A total of eight men – all of them British citizens of Pakistani descent, three of them teenagers – were arrested in the operation, with police from five forces searching a total of 24 addresses across London and the South-East.
I simply don’t how anyone can continue to argue that Iraq is not the centerpiece of the War on Terror. The Al Qaeda goals are clear- they are attempting to hit every ally in the region, because they are terrified of a democratic Iraq.
just saying
Chalk one up for law enforcement.
van
Islamofascists are against individualism of any sort. Especially the kind found in a democracy/republic.
Chalk one up for law enforcement, intelligence gathering and speaking softly but carrying a big stick.
dwight meredith
John, are you suggesting that had we not gone in to Iraq, there would be fewer terrorists attacks or planned attacks?
Peter
terrified of a democratic Iraq? That’s a joke, right?
Ralph Gizzip
Unfortunately, these terrorists won’t be executed. They’ll only serve a few years in prison. This serves only to encourage others to take up their cause as this “punishment” is merely a slap on the wrist.
They should be intensely interrogated then summarily executed as traitors and sabateurs.
Remember, if they’re going to call it a war, we must treat it as such.
Iraq,Pak, what's the difference?
John: “I simply don’t how anyone can continue to argue that Iraq is not the centerpiece of the War on Terror.”
John’s cut ‘n’ paste: “A total of eight men – all of them British citizens of Pakistani descent”
Did you not read your own post, John?
Ralph: “Unfortunately, these terrorists won’t be executed. They’ll only serve a few years in prison.”
An understandable sentiment, Ralph, but for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, the Saudi’s caught 4 bombers and beheaded them in the typical swift Saudi style. When the FBI wanted to interrogate them, they were already dead. They’re not going anywhere, let’s make them wait for their virgins.
Andrew J. Lazarus
John, climb out of the time machine. The fact we put Spain, the UK, and Poland in the line of fire AFTER invading Iraq doesn’t mean that Iraq was a sensible front for the War on Terror in the first place. (Uzbekistan probably DESERVES its terrorist movement.)
Tatterdemalian
Whose line of fire did we put Spain, the UK, and Poland in after invading Iraq?
Pakistan’s? Uzbekistan’s? Iran’s?
Nope… Al-Qaeda’s.
Nuff said.
Ralph Gizzip
“An understandable sentiment, Ralph, but for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, the Saudi’s caught 4 bombers and beheaded them in the typical swift Saudi style. When the FBI wanted to interrogate them, they were already dead….”
Perhaps that was done to keep them from talking. No one fears democracy in the Middle East like the House of Saud.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Tatter, no one disputes that AQ now ooperates in Iraq. They didn’t before.
Do you have some evidence that BEFORE we invaded Iraq AQ had special animus towards Spain and Poland (compared to, say, Germany)? No. Here’s the time machine thinking: That the arrival of AQ in Iraq AFTER the invasion justifies utterly false claims AQ was in Iraq before the invasion.
If we had invaded Peru, then AQ would now be operating in Peru.
ape
well done Lazarus on Peru. spot on.
Yes, Iraq is the centrepiece of AQs activities, just as they wanted it to be after the first Gulf war, when OBL demanded that the Saudi Gov. support him and his troops to throw out the secular infidel from kuwait. it was their refusal that triggered his alienation from his less extreme saudi colleagues.
the secular infidel was of course saddam.
Kimmitt
Wouldn’t a more sensible explanation be that Al Qaeda is seeking to create a rift between its enemies? That is, isn’t realpolitik a better way of looking at this than vague notions of idealism?
Tatterdemalian
We invaded Haiti. Is Al-Qaeda now operating in Haiti?
ape
well yes, fair point Tatter. not quite right about Peru. there do need to be Muslims there. and possibly some ‘holy sites’. although I wouldn’t put it past Islamists to turn up anywhere there was some dissaray and misery to be taken advantage of.
like the way the National Front in the UK whizz around to do some press conferences & marching about anywhere a ‘foreigner’ has been accused of a serious crime. like lice and rats, thieves pimps and rapists, anywhere there’s been a war is a good spot.
Tatterdemalian
There were Muslims in Haiti. Still are.
Incidentally, if Al-Qaeda didn’t give a flip about Iraq and/or actively opposed the Ba’ath Party, as some people claim, why did they demand, as far back as the first WTC attack, that all sanctions against Saddam’s government be lifted?
Kimmitt
“why did they demand, as far back as the first WTC attack, that all sanctions against Saddam’s government be lifted?”
Because they are unfond of Saddam but perfectly fond of the Iraqi people (or their twisted view of them)?
Because they don’t really care that much but were grandstanding as part of a political ploy?
Because they were trying to take advantage of the sanctions as a wedge issue between the US and some of its Arab allies?