London car bomb grabs Washington's attention

I'm glad we are fighting them in Iraq so they can't go to England.

Wow! a car loaded with 50 gallons of gasoline and some nails?

That's what we call a Cadillac Escalade here in the States and that's what the W. administration calls "fear tactics" to coincide with the Democratic debate.

It's been reported that Londen police didn't even both to call in the bomb squad for this "WMD", they put it out by hand.

At least this time the RNC didn't try to convince us that three guys were going to dress up as Pizza delivery boy's aka "terrorists" and take out a whole Army base with their six shooters.

John E's post above is why this liberal (I am pro-choice, anti-death penalty etc.) Democrat no longer has a party home. As much as I am against the President's recklessness in Iraq, I am against a Democratic party that looks at the world with blinders on. To not think that there is a radical Islamist element in the world that would like to take down Democracy and freedom is wrong. In their perfect world, we are either converts, subservient or dead. The President is wrong headed in so many ways, but so are many Democrats. I can't be the only level headed person out there who can't stand Bush or the Dems at this point!

Must be those darn Presbyterian terrorists again. Or the bloodthirsty Methodist mobs.

Seriously... this is what we're spending a trillion dollars and losing thousands of soldiers over? These guys use box-cutters and junior-high-boys-behind-the-school-after-night grade "bombs".

gawd, we're stupid. All that's needed is good police work and sound preventive policies around sensitive infrastructure and airplanes (like locked cockpit doors...duh) and these "terrorists" are rendered completely harmless.

Must be those darn Presbyterian terrorists again. Or the bloodthirsty Methodist mobs.

Posted by: Bruce | June 29, 2007 2:30 PM

Yeah Bruce, you're right. It's not like christians ever blew anything up in London right? The IRA were all muslims, weren't they?

Yes Brucie, and they're ALL guilty. Your sarcasm-tipped racism will do SO MUCH GOOD to bridge the divide.

Sod off.

", we're stupid. All that's needed is good police work and sound preventive policies around sensitive infrastructure and airplanes (like locked cockpit doors...duh) and these "terrorists" are rendered completely harmless"

Thanks David K. for proving what the right has been saying about left wingers like you.

Don't the Brits know that our biggest threat is Global Warming? Why are they wasting time with terrorists?

Larry:

We Democrats are not against fighting terrorists - it's just we think that when we had Osama on the run in Afghanistan, we should have finished the job. Instead, Georgie let him go, invaded Iraq, thereby setting up Al-Qaeda to regroup and recruit all over the world.

If we had done this right in the first place, maybe we would not be where we are now.

I've got a better idea David K.

Let's build a virtual Magnot Line, be really, really, really nice to Muslims, and hope for the best!

What's the worse thing that could happen?

Larry,

After six years of Republican "leadership" in America, myself and many others no longer fall for your (chickenhawk Republicans) fearmongering tactics in order to get votes for your party.

Why are all Democrats such spineless people and think every thing a scene out of "Wag the Dog?"

When does it sink in for this anti- war crowd. People will hate us no matter what we have done. They will also hate us when/if the left actually comes around to figuring out what their alternative solution is. I am not sure what damage 50 gallons of gas can do- but chances are it would be bad.

david k- who is stupid? don't you see that we can secure all of, your words, senstive infrastucture and there will still be people willing to put a car filled with gasloline next to the Mcdonald's where our kids are having lunch? why is the anti-war crowd always looking for the minimized few of the threats that are out there? People hate us because we are not like them- blowing up a car next to innocent people is a rational solution for them.. we HAVE to fight these people, how would you rationally have a converstaion with someone that wants to kill your children?? you are part of a curious bunch..

John E's post above is why this liberal (I am pro-choice, anti-death penalty etc.) Democrat no longer has a party home.
Posted by: Larry | June 29, 2007 2:14 PM

I am a little confused with your thinking. When did the democrats ever say Islamic extremists don't exist or are not a threat?
It is the way you fight this threat that is the difference between the left and right. I find myself asking if you aren't disingenuous in your post. For the last year or so the hardcore war hawks have called people headchopping terrorist lovers because we disagreed with their war. Yet no one has said they don't exist. Are you a wolf in sheeps clothing? Please let me know who in the democratic party has said extremists don't exist. Or are you basing your belief on one post?

"People hate us because we are not like them- blowing up a car next to innocent people is a rational solution for them."

Substitute "smart bomb" for car, and it sounds exactly like your attitude toward them.

You blowhard war peddlers think that this proves something? What fools...we are already in Iraq..how did that stop this? It's not that terrorists don't exist, it's how you fight them that is the difference. 3 trillion dollars and 3500 lives didn't make a difference. Use your brains people.

John E-

" After six years of Republican "leadership" in America, myself and many others no longer fall for your () fearmongering tactics in order to get votes for your party
"
So what exactly are you saying...? was the car/bomb parked, ready to be detonated to get Republican votes? Or is this some staged event- to get votes ? Do you have a point, or do you just like to say " chickenhawk Republicans"?

"People hate us because we are not like them" - heartburn

No, heartburn, people (I assume we're specifically talking about radical Muslims here) hate us because of our long-standing policy to meddle in Middle-Eastern affairs. Isn't it rather silly to think that just being who we are is worthy of so much hatred? I wish people would start to think for themselves and use some logic, rather than parrot republican mantras.

Heartburn...We are already in Iraq, how many more countries would you like to occupy to prevent your kids from getting blown up at McDonalds? Keep slinging that fear, it's a wonderful way to live. You wouldn't know a terrorist if he was looking you in the eye. How about we kill everyone who looks muslim? Hey cause you want your kids safe at that McDonalds...don't you? I know...You want to occupy as many countries as it takes to keep it safe..right? Yeah...that will work. You don't think that kind of thinking may end up making a few more enemies for us?

Larry, welcome to the world of the Loony Left. You're a liberal, fine, but at least you get it about Islamic terrorists. And once again, it's not a conservative right wingnut like me who is knocking Larry, but the Loony Left, lead by Chief Loon John E.

The comments from the deranged, delusional Loony Left like we have here is why the Dumbocraps will not win many elections. Keep saying all your nonsense folks, it just makes the taste of a GOP victory in 2008 all that much sweeter!

I don't want this to become a back & forth, because I hate that part of the blogging world, but just one more comment. John E's response to my post proves my point. He thinks I am a member of the GOP. He is wrong. I voted against Bush twice. My ideal candidate would be a Dem who is strong on terrorism. Unfortunately, each debate and speech leave me without a a viable candidate who meets that criteria. Name calling a Democrat who wants to be strong and smart about foreign policy and defense is not a way to win the election. I caution the bloggers on both sides to realize you represent a tiny minority of the voters. Most do want someone between Bush and the extreme left wing views of Kos and others.

Holy cow...do you mean there are still terrorists out there wishing to do us harm? Well maybe if we invade and occupy another country, all will be better. Maybe we should invade England...ya know..where the terrorist are. Terrorism has been around for decades...why didn't anybody else come up with invading countries as the answer? Thank God Bush knew that invading Iraq would end terrorism.

By the way, BobinATL, I agree with your post 100%, but my fear is that there are plenty of Dems ready to throw in the towel on the whole effort to fight against radical Islamist terrorism. I hope I am wrong.

"don't you see that we can secure all of, your words, senstive infrastucture and there will still be people willing to put a car filled with gasloline next to the Mcdonald's where our kids are having lunch?"

And how exactly does invading an unrelated sovereign nation that conveniently sits on a mountain of oil stop people from filling a car with gasoline and detonating it next to McDonald's?

Thanks David K. for proving what the right has been saying about left wingers like you.

Posted by: JD | June 29, 2007 2:58 PM

What's that JD? That we might have a anti-terrorism plan better than the Right's plan to create 10 times more terrorists than before through goonish violence?

John E,
Wow! a car loaded with 50 gallons of gasoline and some nails?

That's what we call a Cadillac Escalade here in the States and that's what the W. administration calls "fear tactics" to coincide with the Democratic debate.

That is the most assinine statement I have ever read.

Were the people who planted these bombs (there are now apparently two that have been found) trying to commit mass murder or were they not?

What's the worse thing that could happen?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 29, 2007 3:05 PM

Continuation of the Bush policy.

david k- who is stupid? don't you see that we can secure all of, your words, senstive infrastucture and there will still be people willing to put a car filled with gasloline next to the Mcdonald's where our kids are having lunch? why is the anti-war crowd always looking for the minimized few of the threats that are out there? People hate us because we are not like them- blowing up a car next to innocent people is a rational solution for them.. we HAVE to fight these people, how would you rationally have a converstaion with someone that wants to kill your children?? you are part of a curious bunch..

Posted by: heartburn | June 29, 2007 3:14 PM

I understand all of that Heartburn. And agree. But my point is that the solution is NOT to turn 5,000 of these people into 500,000 through moronic, violent, purely reactive, unthought-out wars.

THAT's what I call stupid. For every actual terrorist we're killing, we're probably killing (or have created the environment for the killing of) 50 innocent civilians. Those civilians have parents, children, brothers, friends, etc. All these people who were not willing to give up their life to damage America now just might be.

OK.. put on a war against a tactic. "War on terrorism".. .pssshhh. Terrorism has always been a part of humankind and always will be. You can't defeat a tactic.

When is this war won, Heartburn. Do you have the list of people we need to kill, and when the last one is offed, we've won!? It's stupid and the wrong way to go about this. We need defense at home and diplomatic/economic offense abroad. There is NOT a military solution to Islamic terrorism.

Well, it's obvious that England needs to pass their own Patriot Act, and then terrorists will never again attempt to harm the good people of England.

After all, what's the loss of some rights when one must be ever vigilant against the hordes of terrorists that will come in the night.

Larry, You're painting with the proverbial broad brush when you write "...I am against a Democratic party that looks at the world with blinders on...."

How do you come to that conclusion?

A lot of Americans who also happen to be Democrats died on 9/11. A lot of Americans in the military also happen to be Democrats. I know a lot of American men who also happen to be Democrats who would love to wrap their hands around Osama bin Laden's neck and squeeze until the desired result is arrived at.

What the debate is (or should be) about is how to arrive at the result I think we all want - a safer, more stable, peaceful America and world.

To all the Republicans who want to keep playing the tougher than thou game take a look at the '06 election results and see what that got you.

Nah, couldn't be the Islamic terrorists, the ones who've been setting off similar bombs in London and all over the world. It is racist to even suggest this!

Actually, it must have been a Catholic plot. As we know, Guy Fawlkes tried to set off a bomb in London in 400 years ago, so it's not as if the Catholics haven't tried to bomb London before!

I'm glad this plot was discovered and stopped before anyone was hurt. I am confused by the posts of liberal bloggers in response to this and other terrorist plots, which generally fall within three categories:

(1) It really was not that dangerous of a situation.

This misses the point, which is that there are people out there who want to murder civilians. Just because this particular plot wasn't on the scale of 9/11, doesn't mean that the next one wont be. To simply dismiss a terrorist plot because not that many people would die is willful ignorance.

(2) Even if it was a dangerous situation, it is our fault for making the terorists angry.

I always laugh at this one, because terrorists will always find some ex post facto justification for their murder. Al Qaida is a prime example. If it's not Iraq, then it's Afghanastan. If it's not that, it is anger over Palestine. If not that, then it is anger about someone not of their religion or race daring to set foot on "their land". bin Laden himself has delved back centuries to find tenuous justifications for murder. The point is that terrorists will always invent a justification for their murder, and the only people who still listen are the naive and those who want to exploit the situation politically.

(3) Others besides Islamic terrorists have murdered in the name of religion.

This one does not rise to the level of being a rational point. It implies that past atrocities committed in the name of religion, any religion, somehow explains or justifies continuing acts today. It does not. There is no excuse or justification to murder in the name of religion, and it should be universally condemned whenever it is encountered.

What I see is people that are so full of hatred for George Bush, that they lose the ability to think objectively. They are afraid that if they recognize the threat of terrorism, they are impliedly supporting Bush. Then come the ridiculous three arguments that I mentioned above, all of which ignore the giant elephant in the room, which is that terrorism is a growing storm. It was growing prior to Bush ever being on the national stage, and it will be there long after he is gone because there are those who don't have the will or the desire to confront it.

"(3) Others besides Islamic terrorists have murdered in the name of religion.

This one does not rise to the level of being a rational point. It implies that past atrocities committed in the name of religion, any religion, somehow explains or justifies continuing acts today. It does not. There is no excuse or justification to murder in the name of religion, and it should be universally condemned whenever it is encountered."

Herbie-

The point was to refute Bruce's idiotic post implying that Christians weren't terrorists and Muslims are. There has been far more terror in London by terrorists fighting for a christian religion than terrorists fighting for Islam.

It doesn't matter if the bomb that kills you was set by a Islamic terrorist or a Catholic one, you are just as dead, and it's just as criminal.

Posted by: Herbie H. | June 30, 2007 1:51 PM

Then somehow I guess you didn't read them all. Accident? It seems as though most of the right thinks that these bombings mean they're right. How wrong they are. Taking the fight to them didn't stop these did it? Eveyone knows its a matter of time till we see another one here. Therefor most realize this Iraq war did nothing for us. Less for the Iraqi people. Somehow the goons from the right have spun the fact that we don't agree on the war...we support the terrorists. Do you know how stupid that is? Do you know what kind of idiot would spin that BULL? One more time for the very very dense people on the right....There is a real threat from terrorists...but fighting a war in Iraq has done nothing and probably done more harm and still has not produced what you claimed it would. Whats worse for you??....The majority of Americans know "you" are wrong.

You can interpret these post in several different ways. One is like you have, or...

(1) "It really was not that dangerous of a situation." A response aimed at showing displeasure and in anticipation to the responses of people and politicians willing to hype up the situation to meet the frameworks they choose to view terrorism that furthers their political or biased aims.

(2) "Even if it was a dangerous situation, it is our fault for making the terrorists angry." A response that does not validate the reasons for a terrorist agenda, but one that understand that terrorism works in a way to attract attention to its political grievances (we play a part in) and does think that it is important we don't decide to step down to their level and give them more to work with.

(3) "Others besides Islamic terrorists have murdered in the name of religion." A response in response to those who want to view RADICAL Islamic terrorist (who use violence) as representative of a whole religious group or culture. In order to counterbalance those who seem to elevate terrorism to heights no one has heard of as linked to a religion or culture like its something new. The only thing new about is that the globalization of communications and media has given terrorist who use terror as a tool for political grievances a new outlet in a theater like stage in front of a new world audience never dreamt of by terrorist in the past. That confuses people and makes them think the problem is nebulous and new and represents a religion or culture. Its not. It is a practical problem with practical solutions so lets just keep things at a practical level (that does not translate to spineless) when it comes to terrorism so we don't end up fighting "terror(-ists/ism)" with McCarthyism based on indefinite military world ventures instead. If you continue elevating it to an ambiguous threat who's only solution is war (willing to be biased against the people we need in this fight , Muslims themselves, by using broad terms like "Islamic terrorist") the ONLY thing we will have to buffer terrorism is politicians, all parties, who use fear and ignorance to further their political gains, and who commit to symbolic solutions that take away more rights of the people then they should and still leave us vulnerable if not more in the end; generating more hate for hate groups to recruit from and for us to combat. Who ever talked about the police and infrastructures is ABSOLUTELY right. The POLICE ARE OUR FRONTLINE against terrorists. (Iraq's, like in other ME countries, police force was a mess pre Saddam that is why terrorist, left to their own devices, had/have a great environment for them to do the things they did to their own people or later to others on a wide scale. There were many US and foreign police personnel from all walks of the job there that were working to better the Iraqi police force. Corruption seems to be a problem last time I checked, but don't know what the progress is now. ) In the US sadly the funding cuts to police budgets are leaving police departments strapt (hence that increase in homicides if your wondering), and the money is going to Homeland Security. Not the best idea since again the frontline against terrorists are the police. We need a balance. Not patch a whole in one place at the expense of creating a new one somewhere else.

Herb,

Here's the difference between us and the GOP bloggers (you) on terrorism.

We choose not to be perpetually scared all the time like you and your guys are.

JUST THINK...[If]... ex-pres Jimma Carter would have backed The Shaw of Iran and [If] B.J.Clinton would have taken his eyes off his poll numbers(and Monica) and realize we're under attack from radical Islamists and did something....Hmmm?
Oh,I forgot,their liberal dema...no wonder.

Paulo

Something. I like that word. Apparently, something is much better than the right thing. That lumps Clinton Carter and Bush in the same boat. What a standard of measure we have here. I guess the GOP settles for second best afraid to evaluate if what their doing might be counterproductive or unrealistic. All they know is charge. It's an eye for an eye world out there. Who cares what we stump on in the process. We'll just chuck it up to the price for liberty we somehow are the ones worthy enough to set the price for other people. Oh nuts. I forgot. I'm not that challenged to broad stroke an entire party into this one category. Just the few, the proud, and the delusional. Just remember that the eye for an eye attitude is a path to universal blindness.

Paulo-

Has Bush caught Osama?

Nope, He's safe and secure in Pakistan.

Bush has failed as much as Clinton.

It's confirmed--The London attack was carried out by the people everybody in the world but "Tony" knew it was--Islamic terrorists. See the article in the far-left UK Guardian at
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2115683,00.htm

But Tony, at least bin Laden is isolated, where he was roaming pretty darn free under Clinton. There is a difference.

He's isolated? Where is he isolated? If we know he's isolated than we know his location so why don't we just pick him up then! Wait he's not, but I hear his cronies have decided to use a village we bombed as a human shield, and killed civilians in. How is he isolated? He is still roaming the mountain ranges.

"...roaming pretty darn free under Clinton....."

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa....

But Tony, at least bin Laden is isolated, where he was roaming pretty darn free under Clinton. There is a difference.

Posted by: John D | July 1, 2007 3:22 PM

Do you have to sit and think think up the most ridiculous posts..or do they come natural? Lets see...HHMMMMM..I seem to remember 9/11? Did you forget about that? I believe that happened on Bushs watch...did it not? I seem to remember a promise from Mr. Bush. Do you remember what that was? A differece? I should say so.

Wow John D.,

Thirty-five hundred dead U.S. troops later, a trillion dollars flushed and Bin Laden is "isolated". I feel so much better and safer now, Dyslin. You don't suppose that old Osama has access to the Internet where he can send coded messages to his lieutenants, do you? Or perhaps he has an encrypted satelitte phone. Glad it was all worth it, in your mind.

But Tony, at least bin Laden is isolated, where he was roaming pretty darn free under Clinton. There is a difference.

Posted by: John D | July 1, 2007 3:22 PM

What difference Johnny? How is Bin ladin anymore isolated now than he was in 1998? He's still able to organize and recruit in secure areas. Those areas have just slid across the border to our great "ally" Pakistan.

At least Clinton launched cruise missles at AQ's training camps. Bush is seems perfectly content to let AQ flourish in Pakistan.

Oh and Bruce, I wasn't denying that they were islamic, I was pointing out your usual ignorance of history as noted above.

Paulo:

Why do you keep ignoring the FACT that the first attempt to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993 while Clinton was president, that all of those involved were arrested, tried, convicted, and sit rotting in federal prison?

Compare that to Bush's response to bin-laden's successful attack on the WTC - Shrub has been quoted as saying that he "doesn't even think about bin-Laden anymore".

I'll take Clinton's actions as a definition of success compared to pResident Doogie Howser's any day of the week.

Ah the weirdo, fact-deprived Loony Left.

We have one who suggests that bin laden is sending signals via the Internet! Hmmm, wasn't bin Lsden using cell phones to do this and we were monitoring those satellite calls until the media told the world about it?

Ok, weirdos, here you suggest he is sending stuff via the Internet? Who are the weirdos who keep moaning and groaning about the Bush administration monitoring phone calls from terrorists, freezing bank accounts of the terrorists, monitoring the Internet for terrorist info? Let me give you a clue, those moaning and groaning about those monitoring efforts are the Loony Left!

Then Tony mentions the ONE time Clintoon bombed an EMPTY Al Qaeda training camp in 1998!! Yeah, that really put bin Laden in his place, didn't it?

Bin Laden has been hiding out in the mountains of Pakistan, scared to show his face, scared to do much of anything.

And Doogie, was bin Laden NOT roaming free under Clintoon? Wasn't he flying from Sudan to Afghanistan? Didn't the Sudanese govt. offer to hand him over?

I would suggest you losers do some reading, but that would require some intelligence.

Bill r., if you really want to see ridiculous, try reading your stuff!!

"Why do you keep ignoring the FACT that the first attempt to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993 while Clinton was president, that all of those involved were arrested, tried, convicted, and sit rotting in federal prison"

So...are you admitting that you and others on the left have a pre 9/11 mentality?

"Bin Laden has been hiding out in the mountains of Pakistan, scared to show his face, scared to do much of anything."

Tell that to the Brits.

Face it Johnny D, Bush has cut and run in the central front on terror.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,,1812598,00.html

You would know that he is hiding in the mountains bc he is scared to show his face or do much of anything bc...?? That's right you don't. He is in the mountains NOT bc he is cornered but bc the terrain there is known to him, steep, and rough. Too rough for our soldier to maneuver through safely without being ambushed and prevents us from being able to easily find him. Him being there has NOTHING to do with us isolating him. We didn't play that card for him. He played it for us. He has the upper hand here. Finally, he hasn't been that scared to continue his work through his minions has he?? No. Having him isolated is not that different when you have bunches of them free to roam and use civilians as human shields in the name of his sick ideology.