Gregory Djerejian looks at something I wondered about yesterday - does the seeming smallish attack on London (as opposed to 9/11 and others) indicate that the operational structure of Al Qaeda is in some way eroded or diminished? Gregory wonders,
This is still a tragedy of major proportions by any standard--dozens of civilian lives brutally snuffed out in a horrific mass murder in one of the world's great cities. But is it just me, or does one feel that the explosives used by al-Qaeda couldn't have been of the strength of those employed in Madrid? (Or perhaps today's attacks were the work of some less sophisticated spin-off, copy-cat outfit posing as the real al-Q? Which, if true, might go some way to debunking my thesis as a commenter points out, though I respond here). As anyone who has ridden in the London tube well knows, people are stuffed into the cars like sardines. Yet despite this, thank god, it appears there were many survivors indeed. How powerful could these explosives have been? There may also have been a lack of sophistication in this attack. Witness the double-decker bus. I am reading only two died, probably at least in part because the detonation was on the upper level of the bus--seemingly an error on the part of the terrorist--as one would surmise blowing up the bottom part of the bus would likely result in more killed (still, the toll may rise and the exact circumstances of the bus attack are yet to be determined). Regardless, don't you think that, for a Big Bang style attack in London--a major world and financial capital and home to the so hated Bush Poodle Tony--don't you think al-Qaeda would have put to use the very best explosives it had at its disposal? Given all the logistical effort involved in setting up a series of well sequenced attacks like this--wouldn't al-Qaeda have done, if it could, its very evil best to make sure the most potent explosives were available so as to kill hundreds, not dozens?
It is something to think about and discuss, to be sure. And I think the answer is most likely yes. Ann Althouse links to one comment from a Londoner who has this to say (and yes, the language is stronger than I would normally post here, but it is fitting both in the peculiar British sense of language and due to the event):
"I tell you what, if this is an 'Islamic' terrorist attack, they're doing a piss-poor job. The pubs are all packed out, people sipping their pints happily, all a tad pissed off, but basically fine with it," he noted at 2:05 p.m. "Nice one, Al Quaeda - you profess to be from a teetotal religion, and you've given the pub trade a massive mid-week boost. … Other than causing the grief of too many innocent people, these cunts will have achieved precisely fuck all. We shall not be moved."
I have heard others say something similar to what I suggested yesterday - Is this the best they have? Is that the best attack they could coordinate? Yes, it was effective in the sense that it was coordinated at all - timing wise, placing of bombs, etc. But I would presume that they would want a higher death toll. In that sense, they were not only failures but once again underestimate the fighting spirit of the Anglosphere. Thinking of it in those terms simply suggests that we are winning as I have assumed all along. That does not make it easier to see the innocent lives lost, but it does assist me in feeling secure that no matter how many of these things we see, each time it shows more and more the ineffectiveness of Islamofascism and the great promise of democracy and liberty. That is all.
Comments