Other blogs on the terror plot

National Review's Corner: "This plot, involving, according to Fox News, at least six American airliners crossing the Atlantic, already seems very reminiscent of the so-called "Bojenka" (or "Manila Air") plot from 1994 — the Ramzi Yousef / Khalid Sheik Mohammed plot to blow up a dozen U.S. airliners as they were in flight over the Pacific.  There is obviously a focus here on liquid explosives, out of the belief that they would defeat screening detectors.  The '94 plot involved explosive components that the bomber could assemble in the plane's bathroom and that could be detonated by a timer (a simple wrist-watch, if I'm remembering correctly).  Yousef put one of these together in a test-run.  He boarded a plane making one stop enroute to the U.S.  On the first leg, he put together the device and planted it under his seat.  He then did not contine on the second leg.  The bomb detonated, killing a Japanese national and nearly bringing the flight down.  There is often a long time between attacks, but the jihadists are not idling.  They refine their tactics, and they often go back, again and again, to the same targets and the same plans."

EU Referendum: "The news coming in of the plot to blow up UK flights in mid-air is devastating. This is a salutary and important reminder that the "war on terror" is not a figment of the imagination of the Bush-Blair axis but a reality. Congratulations to the police and security services for intercepting the terrorists."

Iain Dale's Diary: "I've just been watching John Reid's press conference. Strange, I thought, that the Deputy Prime Minister was nowhere to be seen."  Strange or a cause for some relief?

Counterterrorism blog: "The British security reports about a plot to destroy airliners traveling from London to the US and the decision by UK authorities to ban passengers hand bags on board brings back the whole question of the "factory" again, an issue I have been tiredly raising with legislators and officials on both sides of the Atlantic: From shoes to hand bags the Jihadists are not letting go of their morbid fantasy: bleeding the skies over the Atlantic. While most investigation will direct itself on the "hand bag" weapon in the next few hours and probably days, the larger question on the mind of Jihadism analysts will certainly be: where do these Jihadists come from and how come there are more of them?"

John Williams on Comment is free: "John Reid presumably knew about the plot to blow thousands of British holidaymakers out of the sky when he warned yesterday that we face the biggest security threat since the second world war."

Meanwhile, Europe continues to appease: "The EU will not for the time being put the Islamist Hezbollah movement on its blacklist of terrorist organisations but the discussion could re-emerge in the future, the Finnish EU presidency has said" - David Medienkritik

Comments

[Goldie]

This is about the time that young Mr. Cameron says some words to the effect the Islam is a religion of peace, isn't it?

Of course a real conservative would rather mention something about the British muslim community as a fifth column -- as witnessed by the shoe bomber, 7/7, this plot and whatever else we haven't been told about.

[Jersey McJones]

Welp, LAW ENFORCEMENT did it's job and got these guys, meanwhile the MILITARY continues it's misassignment in Iraq and Afghanistan as those nations continue to fail.

Looks like LAW ENFORCEMENT is going to have it's hands full for a long while while WE MAKE NEW TERRORISTS in the Middle East.

JMJ

[Goldie]

JMJ: you have it backwards. We're in the Middle East because of the mess, not in a mess because we're in the Middle East.

Do you think that if we had let Saddam Hussein have Kuwait and Saudi oil, if we allowed the Taliban continued control of Afghanistan, if we allowed Israel to be overrun, then do you think you would be "safe". You think the radical muslims would simply let you live in peace?

You would be wrong. Stop being so naive.

[David Belchamber]

"Do you think that if we had let Saddam Hussein have Kuwait and Saudi oil, if we allowed the Taliban continued control of Afghanistan, if we allowed Israel to be overrun, then do you think you would be "safe". You think the radical muslims would simply let you live in peace?"

Goldie @16.07: IMV we were fully justified in expelling Saddam from Kuwait and preventing him from getting at Saudi oil, we were absolutely right in fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and trying to get Osama bin Laden (but the Americans didn't go through with it the first time)and we are absolutely right to support Israel - up to the point that too many innocent civilians get killed. None of those should have brought such terrorism to the UK.
IMV again, though, we were wrong to start the Iraq adventure on pretty flimsy intelligence, against so much advice and popular feeling and without a broad coalition of support. Under Saddam, Al Quaeda was not a problem in Iraq, nor was Iran.
One major problem then as now is that the Palestinians still do not have a recognised state of their own and this will always be a source of grievance until it is remedied.

[Mr Eugenides]

It's rather sad that my first reaction is one of cynicism. Simply put, I don't believe a word "Rambo" Reid says; this despite knowing full well that there are Islamofascists in this very country willing to kill me to make a point about Palestine/ Iraq/ Afghanistan/ Lebanon/ Western decadence.

I fully support the security services in their response to all this, but suggest vigilance that this incident, as major as it is, is not used to sneak in further, and yet more illiberal, 'anti-terror' legislation. The government's track record is not encouraging in this regard.

[Goldie]

David: The Palestinian Arabs do have their own state, it's called Jordan, just as the Palestinian Jews have a stated called Israel. As you know both were carved out of the old British "mandate" over Palestine. The Palestinian Arabs who don't want to be under Jordan sovereignty have not shown themselves being capable of exercising sovereignty responsibly over Gaza and the West Bank, although the Israelis were very willing to give them such areas in exchange for peace. What are we supposed to do about that?

[Andrew]

I don't see the linkage you're making. Hussein was a secular leader, and regularly crushed religious power bases opposing him. Nothing to do with the Taliban or Al Qaeda (who viewed him as a western puppet, not entirely inaccurately).

Second, Israel is in no danger of being overrun, as it could militarily defeat the entire Arab world. Even if it couldn't, the nuclear deterrent ensures it's not an issue.

This is an issue of local politics rather than religion - Hezbollah was created in 1982 to resist the Israeli invasion, and much of its current power base comes from local memories of the brutality of that occupation. Even if religion was a prime motivator, Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist groups regard Hezbollah and their Iranian backers as not even Muslim.

Lumping secular dictators, Sunni extremists and localised Shia organisations all together in one bucket as "radical muslims" is pretty meaningless.

[Goldie]

Andrew: the "linkage" is that according to JMJ our armed services are making "more terrorists" in the Middle East, i.e. our foreign policy is the CAUSE of terrrorism.

I pointed out that we're in the Middle East because of the mess (i.e. with islam) not in a mess because we're in the Middle East.

[Andrew]

Goldie: wrong, I'm afraid. Britain split its mandate into Palestine and Transjordan long before Israel was even created, as was was specifically allowed under the LoN mandate. Transjordan was and remains Hashemite, while Palestine was to be split between Jews and Arabs.

Britain could hardly do anything else, given that Palestine was majority Arab at the time - unless you advocate ethnic cleansing?

[Sean]

Perhaps this will turn out to be an actual terror plot, as opposed to the previous entrapment stings and outright hoaxes.

Fear the boogeyman, everyone. Give up what's left of your civil liberties before it's too late.

It's for your own good.

[Peter Pan]

Goldie - Are you in GoldieLookingChain ?
Because you're about as fucking intelligent.

[Goldie]

Andrew: I'm aware of all that although the "split" was an administrative technicality, with Britain maintaining control over all parts. The actual split was in 1948, but alhtough the Arabs got an excellent deal, they turned it down to start a war and the rest is history. The point is not to refight all these issues, the point is that the Arabs could have had their state in the old mandate area many, many times and turned it down again and again and again. There is really nothing we can do about that. If the Arabs want peace, the Israelis would be more than happy to oblige as any reasonable person understands.

[James]

It doesn't matter what comes as a result of this "plot," I don't want the British or American governments to strip more freedoms away from their citizens.

They can kill me, but they can't scare me.

How about you guys?

[Goldie]

Phillip Howells/"Peter Pan": thanks for that comment, it really elevates the debate.

[Goldie]

James: The freedom to board planes to blow them up you mean?

[Goldie]

Andrew: as for Israel in danger of being overrun, think again. Once Iran has its nuclear weapon how long do you think they will survive? You really think that the crazies in the Middle East will be deterred by Israel's nuclear weapons?

[David Belchamber]

Goldie @ 16.33: "The Palestinian Arabs who don't want to be under Jordan sovereignty have not shown themselves being capable of exercising sovereignty responsibly over Gaza and the West Bank, although the Israelis were very willing to give them such areas in exchange for peace. What are we supposed to do about that?"
That may very well be the case; my argument is that our foreign role should be to preserve peace - not engage on rash and unjustified military adventures - and that Bush/Blair, instead of engaging on Iraq war part ll, should have devoted themselves to cajoling the Palestinian Arabs into forming a democratic state of Palestine which recognied Israeal and was recognised by Israel. Until his happens, the ME will remain a tinderbox.

[Goldie]

David: I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. Almost none of the current problems we're having with Islam have anything to do with the absence of a "Palestinian" state. Now, the existence of Israel, that's a different matter (but even that is only a small part of the problem).

The moment the Palestinian Arabs want a decent state, they can have one. Again, nothing we can do much about.

[Editor]

I've just seen 'Peter Pan's' language from 16:52. I'll leave it now but normally would delete it. Visitors should note that bad language violates this site's comments policy.

[Geoff]

This is an interesting alternative take on the current events written by a very cynical American. Yanks not impressed with UK terror emergency

[Richard Weatherill]

It occurs to me that if those of us who profess to be Christians were as sanguine at the prospect of our deaths as the suicide bombers appear to be then their threats wouldn't carry much weight. Just a thought ...

[James]

Just a thought for all those keen to endlessly juxtapose the Israeli Palestinian issue onto the Islamic terrorism issue: do any of you seriously think that bin Laden and co would pack up shop and head home if this age old issue was finally resolved - even to maximum Palestinian benefit? That the Ayatollahs would call of the revolution, and all those Finsbury Park Inams end their deranged rants and head back home with a resolution to watch Arsenal play more often?

I'd like to think so, but I doubt it. I can see the importance of western actions not providing an obvious recruiting sergent for Islamist movements, and that this question is directly relevent to Iraq. But these guys didn't come from Iraq, Palestine or even Afghanistan. I may be jumping the gun, but it looks like a substantial portion of the plotters were again British, and from a nominal (if incredibly shakey) ally: Pakistan. There all comparatively wealthy, comfortable and secure.

To ascribe anything close to a reason for their actions insults people in far more dire straights than them. It also ignores bin Laden's stated reason for the 02' Bali bombing: to punish the west for their support for East Timorese independence from Islamic Indonesia.

But aren't westerners always the imperialists?