Terror Incident in London – Moon of Alabama

July 7, 2005

Terror Incident in London

Who? Why? Consequences?
Coincidents with G8 meeting in Scotland and London win of Olympic bid yesterday?

There is no way to "secure" public transport without shutting it down. So what will they do to NYT and Washington DC subways today?

What wingnut will be the first to find a Iran/Syria connection?

Some stuff I liveblogged is below the fold.

—
04:00 AM – The last update looks still correct. The officials
seem to not know the number of dead or are holding back what numbers
they know. But the bus that was hit had the upper deck completely
ripped off and was said to have been packed with people. Not many on
the upper deck can have survived. Eyewittneses also talk of dead in
each subway accident.
—
02:25 AM – London Police: "4 incidents
3 in the subway, confusion because people exit the places of incidents
through different stations, 1 explosion on a bus" "about 150 casualties"
—
02:15
AM – another Blair speach (backdrop, G8 leaders + Annan standing
silently): "Not an attack on one country, but on all countries"
—
02:00 AM – Christopher of Back To Iraq has the "Al Qaeda" letter translated
"As retaliation for the massacres which the British commit in Iraq and Afghanistan, the mujahideen have successfully done it this time in London."
—
01:50
AM – AP via SPIEGEL: a member from the Israeli embassy in London claims
that the embassy has been warned by Scotland Yard of a possible
incident a few moments before the first one happend
—
01:45 AM – London police comissioner: "6 events in the underground, 1 bus explosion"
"all public transport in London shut down" "stay where you are"
—
01:25 AM – SPIEGEL has a picture of the "Al Qaeda" letter online
—
01:15 AM – SPIEGEL reports – "Al Qaeda in Europe" Group published letter claiming responsibility through posting at some website
(websites and posters and commentators can be tracked – I always wonder who then is posting such things)
—
01:10
AM – Blair on TV: "terrorist attack" "designed and aimed with opening
of G8" "G8 meeting to continue" "Determined to defend our way of life
against Extremists"
(curious: looked stressed an near to tears
during his speech, but his face lighted up considerably when it was
over an he left the room)

In a Sky news web report
this nugget: "Scotland Yard has denied reports they were warned of an
attack by Israel minutes before the blasts." – I wonder where that came
from to begin with.
—
01:00 AM – According to a SKY news timeline
the one or two tube explosions occured around 8:40 AM local time. The
tube was shut down and people were told to use busses. 10:45 AM local
time first report of a bus explosion.

—
00:50 AM – Police Chief – "coordinated attacks" (now that was hard to figure out)
– Blair to speak midday London time
– 20 dead, 90 wounded (in such incidents such numbers usuallyl increase significantly over time)
—
00:40 AM – SKY news: UK Army is coming into the city to "provide security"
– is this legal in UK?
—
00:30 AM – BBC: Arab security sources have told BBC: "Al Qaeda"
– believable?
—
00:25 AM – Police says six blasts
—
00:20 AM – At least three buses exploded –

Spiegel shows four incident places.

—

BBC (overloaded)

CNN

via BBC:

Several people have been injured after explosions on the Underground network and a double-decker bus in London.

A police spokesman said there were "quite a large number of casualties" at Aldgate Tube Station.

And Scotland Yard confirmed one of several reports of explosions on
buses in the city – in Tavistock Place – but said the cause was not yet
known.

One caller to BBC Five said his friend had seen "the bus ripped open like a can of sardines and bodies everywhere."

The tube is shuting down.

Stocks falling rapidly – Online trading sites here (in Germany) are down – too much traffic of profiteers?

Posted by b on July 7, 2005 at 09:53 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Bomb reported south of Liverpool St, in Houndsditch.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli finance minister, is in London today at a conference at the Great Eastern Hotel nr Liverpool St to discuss bonds.
Tavistock and Russell Squares, where the buses exploded, are full of tourist hotels, so this is a major hit against the tourism economy.
The FTSE has already fallen by 160.

Posted by: Dismal Science | Jul 7 2005 9:59 utc | 1

Just in time to improve Bush’s image. Pure coincidence,
of course, but I’m sure we’ll find suitable “Islamic
terrorists” to shoulder the blame. Unless the old perennial IRA claims responsibility. Why can’t I take
this at “face value”?

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Jul 7 2005 10:04 utc | 2

So, this comes right at the beginning of the G8 meeting, where all these idiots were going berserk about a few quite peaceful demonstrators. Well, now they see where the real enemy is and what he can do
And of course this comes right after London got the Olympics, where Tony B. Liar said that they were pros about the security and everything would be fine. Yesterday I was thinking they would have some terror attack in the run-up to the Games or during the Games themselves, because it was too big a target for Al-Qaeda wannabes (or the real deal) not to hit it.
I don’t like this. Particularly when I’ve already suspected that if there should be some big Kaboom that would cause (or legitimise) a war on Iran, it’ll likely hit both Europe and US in a big way.
I should check the latest news now, because so far I’ve just heard the usual “could be an accident” PR line, which I’d like to be true but sounds like complete BS.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Jul 7 2005 10:34 utc | 3

I was reading the Anthony Cordesman CSIS paper that Billmon linked to a few days ago.
In it, Cordesman details the growth of the insurgency/fight against occupation in Iraq.
During the period Sept 03-Oct 04 he estimates that attacks in Baghdad rose to 75-100 per week.
So a bit of the flavour of current life in Baghdad arrived in London today. Unfortunately, it is not one to savour.
Payback is a bitch.

Posted by: Dismal Science | Jul 7 2005 10:52 utc | 4

UK Army is coming into the city to provide security
– is this legal in UK?
Yes, it is legal. The Brits do it under a policy, IIRC, ‘Support to the Civil Power’. The emergency and countte-terrorism effort is under civilian control, and is managed by the civilian police. The military provides support and expertise as requested, but under the control and authority of the Metro Police.
This does not fir the MO of various IRA camapigns in the past … that does’nt exclude an unlikely change in strategy. This type of attack requires long term and carefully prepared co-ordinated planning/preparation. Especially given the very good level of experience and ability to prevent such actions in the past re IRA, etc. IRA et al almost always give advance warning using pre-arranged identiy codewords, to allow an opportunity to distinguish between real threats and innumerable hoaxes. This does not appear to be the case here.
Again we have an opportunity to reconsider the consequences of the foreign policies of US/UK … terrorism is a response to loss of hope, humiliation, denial of rights granted others …
Bliar has already done his ‘Bush-Lite’, we’ll never submit speech, we’ll fight them everywhere … where is reason ? not from these dishonest bastards.

Posted by: Outraged | Jul 7 2005 11:07 utc | 5

Daddy, what’s a ‘terrorist’ ?
Father: Well, according to the Oxford dictionary a terrorist is “a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims“. Which means that terrorists are very bad men and women who frighten ordinary people like us, and sometimes even kill them.
Child: Why do they kill them ?
Father: Because they hate them or their country. It’s hard to explain … it’s just the way things are. For many different reasons a lot of people in our world are full of hate.
Child: Like the ones in Iraq who are capturing people and saying that they’ll kill them if all the soldiers don’t leave ?
Father: Exactly! That’s an evil thing called “blackmail”. Those innocent people are hostages, and the terrorists are saying that if governments don’t do what they want the hostages will be killed.
Child: So was it blackmail when we said we’d attack Iraq and kill innocent people unless they told us where all their weapons were ?
Father: No ! Well … yes, I suppose. In a way. But that was an “ultimatum” … call it “good blackmail.
Child: Good blackmail ? What’s that ?
Father: That’s when it’s done for good reasons. Those weapons were very dangerous and could have hurt a lot of people all over the world. It was very important to find them and destroy them.
Child: But Dad … there weren’t any weapons.
Father: True. We know that now. But we didn’t at the time. We thought there were.
Child: So was killing all those innocent people in Iraq a mistake ?
Father: No. It was a tragedy, but we also saved a lot of lives. You see, we had to stop a very cruel man called Saddam Hussein from killing a great many ordinary Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein stayed in power by giving orders that meant thousands of people died or were horribly injured. Mothers and fathers. Even children.
Child: Like that boy I saw on TV ? The one who had his arms blown off by a bomb ?
Father: Yes … just like him.
Child: But we did that. Does that mean our leaders are terrorists ?
Father: Good heavens, no! Whatever gave you that idea ? That was just an accident. Unfortunately, innocent people get hurt in a war. You can’t expect anything else when you drop bombs on cities. Nobody wants it to happen … it’s just the way things are.
Child: So in a war only soldiers are supposed to get killed ?
Father: Well, soldiers are trained to fight for their country. It’s their job, and they’re very brave. They know that war is dangerous and that they might be killed. As soon as they put on a uniform they become a target.
Child: What uniforms do terrorists wear?
Father: That’s just the problem … they don’t ! We can’t tell them apart from the civilians. We don’t know who we’re fighting. And that’s why so many innocent people are getting killed … the terrorists don’t follow the rules of war.
Child: War has rules ?
Father: Oh, yes. Soldiers must wear uniforms. And you can’t just suddenly attack someone unless they do something to you first. Then you can defend yourself.
Child: So that’s why we attacked Iraq ? Because Iraq attacked us first and we were just defending ourselves ?
Father: Not exactly. Iraq didn’t attack us … but it might have. We decided to get in first. Just in case Iraq used those weapons we were talking about.
Child: The ones they didn’t have ? So we broke the rules of war ?
Father: Technically speaking, yes. But …
Child: So if we broke the rules first, why isn’t it OK for those people in Iraq who aren’t wearing uniforms to break the rules ?
Father: Well, that’s different. We were doing the right thing when we broke the rules.
Child: But Dad … how do we know we were doing the right thing ?
Father: Our leaders … Bush and Blair and Howard … they told us it was the right thing. And if they don’t know, who does? They say that something had to be done to make Iraq a better place.
Child: Is it a better place ?
Father: I suppose so, but I don’t know for sure. Innocent people are still being killed and these kidnappings are terrible things. I feel very sorry for the families of those poor hostages, but we simply can’t give in to terrorists. We must stand firm.
Child: Would you say that if I was captured by terrorists ?
Father: Uh … yes … no … I mean, it’s very difficult …
Child: So you’d let me be killed ? Don’t you love me ?
Father: Of course! I love you very much. It’s just that it’s a very complicated issue and I don’t know what I’d do …
Child: Well, if somebody attacked us and bombed our house and killed you and Mum and Jamie I know what I’d do.
Father: What ?
Child: I’d find out who did it and kill them. Any way I could. I’d hate them for ever and ever. And then I’d get in a plane and bomb their cities.
Father: But … but … you’d kill a lot of innocent people.
Child: I know. But it’s war, Dad. And that’s just the way things are. Remember?
— Letter to the editor, David Campbell, April 23, 2004.

Posted by: Outraged | Jul 7 2005 11:11 utc | 6

Who? The shortlist of suspects:
IRA (any branch thereof)
Al-Queda (any franchisers thereof)
US black-ops (from any of the agencies that has such)
Someone else.
IRA makes little sense to me, though there are groups in IRA which does not seem to have much sense. However the splinter groups are as I undrestood it generally small.
Al-Queda claims responsability from one of those pages that obviously are sooo hard to find. And I thought the Al-Queda usually didn´t claim responsability.
US black-ops: sure Bush needs a boost, especially if they will nuke the senate to rule the SC, but the timing still feels strange (unless Patriot 3 will pass in the next couple of days). And why London? Does not really make any sense to me.
Someone else – fox hunters? The scale suggests organisation and determination, not some british version of the Oklahoma bombers.
If I were to bet, I think I would have to go with Al-Queda. But I am really not sure at all.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Jul 7 2005 11:39 utc | 7

Who ever it is unfortunately it’s always innocent people that have to pay…
Just hope they are right in saying that there will be no many casualties cause it was not aim …they think these events are designed to paralyze London and ruin moral…
To be honest I don’t know why, maybe because I am damned old witch but again I am not seeing what would be normal too see in situations like this (watching BBC all the time)…It’s fishy and you can kill me…Maybe British are just cold (calm) people used to this kind of thing but I don’t see panic I don’t see emotions on peoples faces…not even witnesses…only Blair…and I don’t believe him…
And about information …it’s so bloody confusing…now suddenly it’s 4 blasts…We had 7 about hour ago…50 dead and then back to 2…Where are journalists? We don’t see any real scene of the blast…This is incredibly unreal…
Sorry again I am sorry for all innocent people that are suffering because of this catastrophe…

Posted by: vbo | Jul 7 2005 12:08 utc | 8

@vbo
The british character is very stoic.
But most importantly they’ve suffered terrorist attacks for generations re IRA and offshoots. The public, but especially the Police and emergency services are very experienced and understand the importance of calm, informed, prioritized, directed efforts. Raises an interesting contrast to our responses in such events …
All such events are tragic … yet I can’t help compare the blamket, extended worldwide coverage compared to the single bi-line sentence given to 17 civilians, villagers, killed by air strikes in Afghnaistan the other day as part of Ops to rescue our missing SEALS …

Posted by: Outraged | Jul 7 2005 12:20 utc | 9

From the comments at europhobia:
Thames Clippers
Due to the explosions in London today we are putting on free travel on the river on all of our boats. For more information please call us on 0870 781 5049
http://www.thamesclippers.com/

Posted by: aemd | Jul 7 2005 12:39 utc | 10

I have lived in London all my life and heard the explosions of the IRA bomb at the army barracks at Hyde Park in the 1980s (I was in the Shepherds Bush end of Notting Hill Gate at the time, which if you know your London geography, is a quite a way a way), and I was in a house in Kentish Town (north-west London) when the windows shook when Canary Wharf (way out in east London) got bombed much later.
There was also the massive blast at the Baltic Exchange in the City, the Brighton bomb that nearly did for Thatcher, and other smaller bombs along the way. But there was also a lot of support for the cause of Irish freedom in London (including among the large Irish ex-pat community that gravitates to north London), and Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, the Irish “terrorists” whose voices couldn’t even be broadcast on TV for a while (the BBC got round the ban by getting actors to speak their words for them – maybe broadcasters can do the same now for Saddam?) – are now ministers in government in Northern Ireland.
I also remember the horror of the fire at Kings Cross tube in the late 1980s, which a senior London Underground employee later told me melted the ticket machines down to pools of liquid metal.
So this event is not new, but the scale of it is, and the fact that the Army is said to be on the streets of Covent Garden is, to put it mildly, no fun at all.
Large parts of the tube network will probably be out of action for weeks, and the summer tourist season is knackered – watch those holiday cancellations soar.

Posted by: Dismal Science | Jul 7 2005 12:47 utc | 11

For the record: President Bush saw these attacks this morning, and called for “hope and compassion”.
What was Karl Rove saying last week?

Posted by: Max Power | Jul 7 2005 12:50 utc | 12

I should add that anyone here who doesn’t recognize this as the work of the still-alive and active Osama bin Laden is hasn’t been paying attention.
This is al-Qaeda sending you a message.
Blaming fox-hunters, the Irish, or “US Black Ops” is stupid. You’ll find plenty of bin Laden admirers willing to say this is the work of Jews.

Posted by: Max Power | Jul 7 2005 12:56 utc | 13

The success of these attacks can only be viewed as yet another blow to American and British credibility. Further they represent a collossal intelligence failure, for both America and Britian. It really is irrelevant who is responsible, or who knew about it before hand, what matters is that some one was able to make the leaders of the “War on Terror” look powerless.
The responsibility for this reprehensible event ultimately will rest with the Blair government for permitting this to occur. Team Bush also bears responsibility as they failed to protect our closest ally Britain. Look for Bush to cravenly try to both shirk responsibility for this failure “Bad things happen”, and to use it as an excuse to drive forward whatever pet policies his handlers feel are most urgent, “If only the liberal traitors in America had not helped the insurgents by blocking “.
That this event occured at all puts the lie to the American-British “War on Terror” being about stopping terrorism. Terrorism is the consequence of attempting to run an empire, much as piracy is the consequence of attempting to run monopoly. No matter what is said or done by our current leaders, the net effect of their words and deads will be to convey to the world that this morning’s events are the acceptable cost of doing business.

Posted by: patience | Jul 7 2005 13:10 utc | 14

” Terrorism is the consequence of attempting to run an empire, much as piracy is the consequence of attempting to run monopoly. No matter what is said or done by our current leaders, the net effect of their words and deads will be to convey to the world that this morning’s events are the acceptable cost of doing business.”
***
Yap…I agree…

Posted by: vbo | Jul 7 2005 13:24 utc | 15

Posted by: vbo | Jul 7 2005 13:34 utc | 16

Of course it is to soon to tell, many rumors and moral panic, but one thing is crystal clear:
Protests=terrorists in the minds of the lobot American.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 7 2005 14:19 utc | 17

Max,
Short comment:
If it is Al-Queda, it is probably “Al-Queda in Britain” or some other local franchise and has very little to do with any order from Bin Laden.
To dismiss possibilities as stupid without argument as to why is in my opinion stupid.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Jul 7 2005 14:34 utc | 18

A swedish kind of death, everything is possible with this “Emperors” of ours…I can’t think of anything that would sound impossible…

Posted by: vbo | Jul 7 2005 14:46 utc | 19

The Brits won’t accept website claims, they will go after this one………….. interesting that the BBC reported that the Israeli Embassy were given prior warning……… HKOL, I’m in your camp.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 7 2005 15:26 utc | 20

GWOT – Is that the “Global War on Thinking”?
DSM, Plamegate, calls for impeachment in recent weeks, the lies that were starting to surface, SCOTUS debates. That’s all gone now.
Here is some interesting reading while the Propagenda of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff soapbox oration tells us our role here in Merica, fear and shopping :
The Occult Technology of Power

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 7 2005 15:33 utc | 21

@Hannah
Crash Corrigan Crashes Again
Posted by James Wolcott
No sooner do I link to the article about Bush’s eyeblinking storms and strange series of slapstick mishaps than–
well, first let’s recap those pratfalls…
“Evidence of motor system impairment has been well chronicled by the media. Most of these incidents have come at times of particular stress. They include:
“January 2001: While watching a football game, Mr. Bush fainted and injured his face. This was a time of stress, 2 weeks before his post-9/11 State of the Union address.
“May 2003: Mr. Bush fell off a Sedgway gyroscopically balanced 2-wheel scooter. Another stress — 2 weeks before a trip abroad to line up support for Iraq war.
“August 2003: Mr. Bush dropped his dog as Barney as Mrs. Bush handed him the dog at the TSTC Airport in Waco, Texas, to the horror of onlooking schoolgirls. In little over a week he would give only his second (the first was to announce the start of the war on Iraq) address to the nation defending the yellowcake/Wilson/Plame matter, the WMD deadend, and the growing insurgency in Iraq — arguably his most important national address to date. This was a time of stress.
“May 2004: Two days before one of very few and arguably the most important prime-time speech of his, in which he defended the Iraq war in the wake of Fallujah and Najaf unrest, Mr. Bush fell and injured his face again. His approval rating was 41 percent, the lowest of his presidency, at this time of stress.
June 4, 2004: Mr. Bush appeared with a scatch on his right cheek. Had he fallen again?”
Dunno about the June 4 incident but MSNBC has just had a Flash News bulletin that Bush collided on his bike with a local police officer in Gleneagles, apparently traveling at high speed; he slid on a paved surface and took a few scrapes and bruises.
Perhaps Bush was showing off his Lance Armstrong moves and got carried away. Or, as the rollcall above suggests, perhaps this latest tumble is part of his stress-related pattern of momentary loss of motor skills. What could be stressing our president?
It would be irresponsible to speculate.
But what the hell.
In a related development, Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, described Judith Miller, who has been ushered into incarceration over her refusal to testify in the Valerie Plame leak investigation, as “an honorable journalist.” Tell it to the Iraqi dead.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 7 2005 15:34 utc | 22

since we’re open to irresponsible speculation: bush is getting beat up by his handlers. the excuses are just that.

Posted by: b real | Jul 7 2005 15:50 utc | 23

since we’re open to irresponsible speculation: bush is getting beat up by his handlers. the excuses are just that.

Posted by: b real | Jul 7 2005 15:52 utc | 24

Via atrios: French Sissies.
Pretty amazing, the depth of vulgarity; the way lines are drawn.

Posted by: slothrop | Jul 7 2005 16:25 utc | 25

I had a French grandma. I’m not French enough for the French, probably, but French enough for the foxfascists.
Boggles the mind.

Posted by: slothrop | Jul 7 2005 16:31 utc | 26

Anybody else notice? During the G8 solidarity photo op a few hours ago when Blair was speaking, Chirac looking on concerned, Bush was looking off into middle distance, not at Blair, blinking, not looking particularly focused, concerned, angry.
Pain killers from yesterday’s bike crash? Jet lag? Recalling the lines from The Pet Goat?

Posted by: Hamburger | Jul 7 2005 16:45 utc | 27

I posted this a few minutes ago at Billmon’s “London Calling” – it probably belongs here as well:
Juan Cole’s always Informed Comment posits that the trial of a radical cleric, which started up Tuesday at Old Bailey, might explain the timing:
Link Link
As often the case, I think he’s spot on…

Posted by: McGee | Jul 7 2005 17:31 utc | 28

JuanCole refers to the aims of Al-Qaeda …
Al Qaeda formally stated Ojectives (short version)
1)Remove US forces from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
2)Liberate Jerusalem from Israelis
3)Overthrow the “un-Islamic” governments of the region
4)Restore the Caliphate, or pan-Islamic ruler
5)As a result war against America and American interests and allies to achieve the above
Its got absolutely nothing to do with the repetitive, diversionary, bullshit smokescreen of Bush and Bliar about ‘values’ and ‘civilizations’.

Posted by: Outraged | Jul 7 2005 19:38 utc | 29

I heard President Bush pledge that ‘we would hunt down these terrorist and bring them to justice.’
Same speach he gave after 9-11. Osama is alive and well and still in the bombing business.
Iraq just seems like all so much foolishness. Real people, real lives, and the Bring it on President only knows to play cowboy.

Posted by: Timka | Jul 8 2005 2:12 utc | 30

Quote:
I heard President Bush pledge that ‘we would hunt down these terrorist and bring them to justice.’
Same speach he gave after 9-11. Osama is alive and well and still in the bombing business.
***
Didn’t they look ridiculous on that stage? I catch the moment of silence that was so humiliating for all of them…
If only they are humans…hah

Posted by: vbo | Jul 8 2005 5:55 utc | 31

Posted by: vbo | Jul 8 2005 6:13 utc | 32

Back to Main