Scotland Yard: terror attack in London inevitable

Jerusalem Post ^ | Mar. 16, 2004 | Douglas Davis

[Alouette]

Britain's top policeman, Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir John Stevens, warned on Tuesday that a terrorist attack in London is inevitable, despite the fact that anti-terror officers are working "three-times harder than ever" to prevent such an atrocity.

His remarks come amid heightened public tensions and security measures following the Madrid bombings last Thursday which left 200 dead and thousands injured.

Speaking at a press conference with London Mayor Ken Livingstone, Stevens revealed that, "we have actually stopped terrorist attacks happening in London, but," he said, "there is an inevitability that some sort of attack will get through."

The sentiments expressed by Stevens have been echoed by Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, while Livingstone told the press conference it would be "miraculous" if London escaped an attack by al-Qaida. Earlier, Home Secretary David Blunkett warned on BBC radio: "It is quite likely they are planning one now."

The Madrid attack has had a tragic consequences for the victims and their families, but it has also had a profound political effect across Europe.

One immediate consequence was the unexpected victory of Spain's Socialist Party in last Sunday's election. Another was the immediate declaration by Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero that he would extract the Spanish component from the US-led coalition in Iraq.

In describing the Iraqi campaign as a "disaster" based on a "lie," and calling on George Bush and Tony Blair "do some reflection and self-criticism," Zapatero has re-opened the combustible debate over Iraq in Europe, with increased rancor.

It is now widely accepted that Sunday's electoral upset in Spain was a consequence of the perception that, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, Jose Maria Aznar's ruling Popular Party attempted to hoodwink the public by placing the blame firmly on the domestic ETA terrorist group.

And as it became more obvious that the attack was conducted by al-Qaida, or a wholly-owned subsidiary, the charge of deception became conflated with the notion that Aznar actually invited the attacks on Madrid by leading his country into the deeply unpopular Iraq war.

The Madrid attacks are now spoken of as "Europe's 9/11," while the Zapatero's unexpected victory in Spain is being described as "Bin-Ladin's first regime change."

But beyond the tragedy and the carnage, there is little similarity between the American and Spanish experiences. Unlike the solidarity that marked the aftermath of the attacks on America, the attacks on Spain appear to have widened the intra-European rifts that had emerged in the run-up to the war, at both national and supranational levels.

The sense of outrage in Spain is directed more at its departing political leader than at the terrorists; the sense of solidarity is with other European states that are reflexively anti-American and that most vociferously oppose the Iraq war.

For them, it is American action that provoked the Madrid attacks; it is Washington rather than Islamic fascism that is the author of their misfortune. While America responded to the attacks on its homeland with defiance, the Europeans are showing a propensity for their old game of appeasement, a game they have played with great vigor in the Israeli-Arab theater.

Spain, once considered to be solidly Atlanticist, is about to make a dramatic about-face. Zapatero was quick to indicate this week that the "Three Amigos" - Bush, Blair and Aznar - are history; instead, he will pursue what he described as a "magnificent" partnership with France and Germany.

The weakening of the coalition will not help George Bush to sustain the credibility of America's bloody engagement in Iraq; nor will it help his campaign for re-election in November.

At the same time, the zeitgeist - transforming victim into perpetrator - will not help Blair, who led Britain unwillingly to war and was unkindly described by Jose Bono, a senior aide to Zapatero, as "un gilipollas integral" - a total dickhead.

If, as is being widely predicted, Islamic terrorism visits the streets of London, the British prime minister, like his outgoing Spanish counterpart, will face tough questions. "Regime change," al-Qaida-style, might not have ended in Madrid.

"We are renowned as a phlegmatic people," noted Peter Kilfoyle, a Labor legislator and former defense minister in the Blair government, "but we are not forgiving to those who let the side down, whether at home or abroad.

"If such an attack were to take place here," he wrote in the London-based Guardian this week, "the question would inevitably be whether our support for America's war against Iraq had made it more likely."

This was, he added, a subject for Blair to reflect on: "If ever there was a case of an individual driving the nation into a war then it was him. People will inevitably link his personal crusade to any failure to forestall terrorist outrages. Thus the stakes for him have increased alarmingly."

[Alouette]

FRmail me to be added or removed from this Judaic/pro-Israel ping list.

WARNING: This is a high volume ping list

[Puppage]

Scotland Yard: terror attack in London inevitable

Well, then....ya might as well give up, submit to their will.

Don't worry AMERICA WILL PROTECT YOU.....AGAIN

[dfwgator]

The only question is will it be Al-Qaeda or the IRA?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Sweeping out the radical mosques would be a good place to start protecting London.

[JCB]

I only hope that if/when such an attack occurs that the militant clerics in England and their followers are swiftly put to the sword - by vigilante mobs if necessary. Their hatred has been tolerated for far too long.

[presidio9]

Speaking at a press conference with London Mayor Ken Livingstone

Isn't this the clown who called President Bush "The most dangerous person in the history of the world?"

[eyespysomething]

Well, we all know the US was never attacked until we went into Iraq a year ago, neither was anyone else. If only we hadn't gone into Iraq, September 11 would have never happened. Nor the Bali bombing, nor all the other terrorist attacks.

See, it all involves this time machine, which let the terrorists know about us attacking Iraq way back in the 50's. Yep, that's it.

So no terror anywhere would have ever happened if only we hadn't attacked Iraq a year ago.

[Diogenesis]

John Kerry(D) and Martin McGuinness (IRA, Sinn Fein)
in Boston on March 12, 2004.

'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy'

[RussianDude]

the Europeans are showing a propensity for their old game of appeasement, a game they have played with great vigor in the Israeli-Arab theater.

Do these fools really think that if Israel is destroyed they'll be spared?

[txhurl]

I hope Europe appreciates what terrorism does to their tourism industry.

[tjwmason]

----Scotland Yard: terror attack in London inevitable

Well, then....ya might as well give up, submit to their will.

Don't worry AMERICA WILL PROTECT YOU.....AGAIN----

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. But just because we realise that we are a prime target for al Qa'eda does not mean that we will surrender, it does not mean that we will do anything other than continue to fight.

Also, in terms of terrorism, we do not need help from America (though our partnership is greatly valued by all sane leaders over here), after all we stood firm against 25 years of the (American financed) I.R.A.

England does not surrender.

[retrokitten]

I agree with you. I believe Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft have said they think it's only a matter of time before America is attacked by Al Qaeda again, so I don't really see this as some huge revelation.

England is not a wimpy nation that will roll over for terrorists.

[Monty22]

"England does not surrender."

People were saying about Spain the other day too, and yet here we are.

[richardtavor]

I read someone's guess of the order of attack (reverse order of the Crusades,) and it kind of made sense:

1. Turkey (revenge for the destruction of the Ottoman Empire
2. Spain - to regain the Moors (or some would say Andalusia.
3. Italy - Crusader Capitol and seat of Heresy
4. Vienna - Islam stopped there in 1683 before engulfing Europe
5. France - Who cares?
6. England - support of the USA
7. USA - saving the best for last - (Maybe Kerry will convert.)
Spain has surely emboldened these terrorists, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[FITZ]

Sweeping out the radical mosques would be a good place to start protecting London.

Exactly. England, the USA, and the rest aren't being attacked by armies showing up on their beaches, it't lack of control over who and why certain types are coming into the country and the access they are being given. Here our open borders could be our downfall. In WWII we didn't allow Nazis --- or other Germans --- to just come over as they pleased.

[tjwmason]

People were saying about Spain the other day too, and yet here we are.

People said it about England in 1940.

The major difference between England and Spain is that both our right-wing party (the Conservative Party) and our left-wing party (the Labour Party) are both united behind the War on Terror, and the invasion of Iraq. Even those politicians who did not support the invasion of Iraq have stated that we need to see the job through. There is nobody of any position at all in British politics who is advocating surrender. The rest of the world may fall away from the coalition (including if, and I hope it will not happen, Sen. Kerry gets elected the U.S.), but England will stand firm, as she has done for a thousand years.

England does not surrender. We did not surrender to the Nazis. We did not surrender to the I.R.A. We will not surrender to al Qa'eda. We do not surrender.

[CholeraJoe]

England is not a wimpy nation that will roll over for terrorists.

It's a far, far different nation than in 1940.