Car Bomb Jihad--Is Britain seeing clearly?

Frontpagemagazine ^ | 7-2-07 | Dr. Walid Phares

[SJackson]

Car Bomb Jihad

By Dr. Walid Phares
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 2, 2007

British authorities are to be commended for successfully averting two (maybe more) car bomb attacks in London last week. At the same time, much of the reaction of Britain’s counter-terrorism community reveals that the country is not wholly prepared to deal with the terrorism threat.

Let's begin with the contradictory statements made by British authorities after the car bombs had been identified. On one hand, Britain’s new home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said after an emergency meeting of top officials that “we are currently facing the most serious and sustained threat to our security from international terrorism.” But other British authorities claimed that “they found no link between the defused car bomb and any terrorist group.” This sharp contradiction is indicative of the tough political background to the UK’s counter-terrorism efforts.

The problem is this: Since the “7/7” attacks, authorities have hesitated to define the enemy. For London’s political establishment, any reference to the religious or ideological motivations of the terrorists is to be avoided. Examined closely, this attitude is the result of layers of “expertise” provided by academic “specialists” who advise against any statements that, as they see it, would exacerbate domestic tensions with the domestic Muslim community.

Hence, British authorities have preemptively dropped any reference to the cause of the terrorists’ war -- namely, Islamic jihadism -- while failing to outline its global scope. By default, then, the government has conceded to the Islamists a political victory in the "battle of ideas."

A second series of questions accompanying the immediate debate about last week’s plot centered on the alleged link to al-Qaeda. The media went back and forth on the theory of Bin Laden’s responsibility -- as if this single factor would shape the strategy to respond. To be successful, British investigators must bypass the dead-ended guessing about al-Qaeda’s formal role and spend their energies and time on the more important issue: Islamist penetration of British society.

Bin Laden and Zawahiri may or may not have ordered this specific operation; al-Qaeda’s central apparatus may or may not be in charge of its execution; and the perpetrators may or not be professional terrorists. Of greater consequence for counterterrorism efforts is finding out who indoctrinated those who planted last week’s bombs and procuring detailed information about jihadist cells in the UK. Bin Laden will one day pass from the scene. But unless confronted, Britain’s jihadist network will live on.

The question of whether the terrorists were “homegrown” or “international” circulated with dizzying frequency last week. Neither explanation is reassuring for the authorities. If the terrorists are “homegrown,” it reopens the debate about the radicalization of the British Muslim community. Obviously, officials want to avoid the matter. If, on the other hand, the terrorists are said to be “international,” with links to outside terrorist networks, officials would have to grapple with an equally unappealing fact: The followers of jihad, whether “homegrown” or “international,” operate without boundaries.

Failure to consider the underlying cause of jihadist terrorism has stunted Britain’s intellectual debate. Consider that in the most recent plot, the two cars were declared as “linked” because the bombs they contained were made of the same material. But what if the two car bombs were filled with different types of explosives? Would they then have belonged to two different conflicts? It would have been odd in the extreme for police during the London Blitz of 1940 to wonder whether the bombs falling on the city were “linked” because they were made of the same material. But because many in Britain still refuse to acknowledge that they are at war with Islamic terrorism, we get the kind of official analysis that we saw last week.

Surveying the situation from a distance, it seems that even the successes that British authorities have had can be exaggerated. For instance, the government prides itself for having installed more cameras in London than in all other European cities combined, a fact acknowledged by commentators who noted that the manhunt launched for the suspects last week was made possible by the release of film from London’s surveillance cameras. But the reason that this surveillance is so extensive is that for years the authorities were on the defensive, having caved in to those lobbies who insisted that the government should not target terrorists before they strike. Resources were diverted to spy on the terrorists, but little was done to preempt their attacks. The United States is under similar pressure by its own internal critics to follow the same path and stop monitoring the terrorists.

Fortunately, British officials are becoming more clear-sighted. Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, former head of Britain’s joint intelligence committee, was among the first to conclude that the two car bombs were related to the attack on Glasgow Airport. It is the first step to understanding that what the UK is facing is not dispersed acts of violence but a war that is grounded in the expansion of Wahabism, Salafism and other forms of radical ideologies. There is a standing order by al-Qaeda and fatwas by Salafi asking their allies, local and international, to "strike into the heart of infidels, including the British."

Other strategic considerations are also in play. There is little doubt that the Islamists want to test the new cabinet of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and to drag him into an “engagement.” This in turn would provide extremists in Britain’s Muslim community the occasion to demonize Brown and weaken his resolve to confront both domestic and international terrorism. The jihadists’ move is clear, but the question remains: Is Britain seeing clearly?

[IrishMike]

Glasgow Airport Bomb Similar to London Bombs
British police were on the bombers’ trail as another group of terrorists drove their bomb-laden Jeep into an entrance gate at Scotland’s Glasgow Airport. Authorities had left a request for information on the suspects with their landlord, from whom they had rented living space just weeks prior to the attack.

Conducting raids throughout the UK, Britain continues its hunt for terrorists in the involved cell, believed to be part of al-Qaeda. Understandably, the hunt is difficult as “These are not the type of people who always carry identity documents, or who use their real identities.” Several British newspapers are reporting that “two of the men arrested were hospital doctors.” British authorities, however, have refused to comment on the claim. Three of the five already arrested are reported to be foreign nationals, and all five are said to be Muslim extremists.

All of the bombs used have been of the same gasoline and propane/butane gas design, each with double cell phone triggers that failed. As details of the devices and intent become known, a picture of a flawed bombing campaign by martyrdom-seeking terrorists is beginning to emerge.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]

----------------------------

[johnny7]

“Is Britain seeing clearly?”

More importantly... ARE WE?

[mvpel]

Examined closely, this attitude is the result of layers of “expertise” provided by academic “specialists” who advise against any statements that, as they see it, would exacerbate domestic tensions with the domestic Muslim community.

In other words, "don't call it 'Islamic terrorism' or you'll provoke Islamic terrorism."

[brownsfan]

The distressing thing is that we, (meaning the US society, not freepers), seem to be accepting this as a natural course of events. It’s like:
“Well, some muslims will do that, it’s just going to happen.”

NO. Get rid of them, ALL of them. Want to stay, give up islam, period.

[SMARTY]

Funny, they did not have any compuntion about calling the Irish terrorists by their right name.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

The west needs to wake up that Islam isn’t a religion, but a political ideology based on violence and intollerance.

There will never be a peacful co-existance between islam and other cultures and religions.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

Sorry, Walid......all of it springs from MUSLIM idealogy, including and especially Taqiyya, Da'wah, and Jihad. Don't waste your credibility attempting to sidestep the core of it.

[AbeKrieger]

Islam is a terminal cancer which the West has been duped into believing is a legitimate religion.

[britemp]

‘Funny, they did not have any compuntion about calling the Irish terrorists by their right name.’

That’s because Irish is a nationality, not a religion. The British govt rarely if ever referred to the IRA and their ilk as catholics, they were generally referred to as Republican or Nationalist terrorists. The reason was because they wanted to separate the terrorists from the religion, not unite them. They are following a similar plan with muslim terrorists, but I fear the case is a very different one and will need another change of tactics soon as muslim terrorists are far more closely wedded to the fundamental aspects of their religion than the IRA ever were.

[mmichaels1970]

“Is Britain seeing clearly?”

The first thing they saw when the bomb went off was an "Asian man". I think this answers it.

[JHT]

“Let’s begin with the contradictory statements made by British authorities after the car bombs had been identified. On one hand, Britain’s new home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said after an emergency meeting of top officials that “we are currently facing the most serious and sustained threat to our security from international terrorism.” But other British authorities claimed that “they found no link between the defused car bomb and any terrorist group.””

All this illustrates is the difference between political statements and police work. There was and still is no established link between the bomb and a specific identified terrorist group. That’s not at all contradictory with believing and proceeding on the assumption that the bombs were planted by Islamic fundamentalists, possibly with international assistance.

[JHT]

“The first thing they saw when the bomb went off was an “Asian man”. I think this answers it.”

Well, ‘asian men’ have been responsible for nearly all the actual (London tube bombings) and attempted recent terrorist attacks in the uk, so that’s not really suprising. Although the last I heard the detained people in this case were described as having ‘middle eastern’ nationalities, and possibly at least one was Iraqi. Still not necessarily that much different in appearance.

[Deo volente]

The followers of jihad, whether “homegrown” or “international,” operate without boundaries.


They're just starting to figure this out?
How dense can they be?

[Cicero]

Funny, they did not have any compuntion about calling the Irish terrorists by their right name.

It's a matter of political correctness. Catholics are fair game. Irish are fair game. Muslims are not. Arabs and Pakistanis are not.

The British occupation of India and Egypt was colonial, therefore evil. The British occupation of Ireland was NOT colonial, but merely served those ignorant, superstitious Irish Catholics right.

That's the mindset. It's been brewing for hundreds of years before the last dollop of postmodernism was added.

I agree, in any case, that it's not just a British problem. Our own government is just the same, and so are our media and our academics. Muslim good, Catholic bad. Muslims are designated victims, Catholics are dangerous, superstitious, potential Inquisitors. And, not mentioned, Baptists are evil and dangerous, too. So we'll allow Korans in school, but not Bibles.

[mmichaels1970]

Well, ‘asian men’ have been responsible for nearly all the actual (London tube bombings)

I'm sure you're right. I just don't see "Asian" in this photo:





I suppose when I hear Asian I think Oriental.

I also read that Three of the four bombers were British nationals of Pakistani descent from West Yorkshire They were: Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, of Dewsbury; Hasib Mir Hussain, 18, of Holbeck, Leeds: and Shehzad Tanweer, 22, of Beeston, Leeds . One was Jamaican I think. I'm no expert though. I guess maybe "Asian" is technically correct and interpreted differently than I personally interpret it.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

British refer to pakistanis and indonesians as “asians” as well as chinese and japanese, etc...

[JHT]

“I suppose when I hear Asian I think Oriental.”

This is your exact problem here. Whereas when any British person using the description ‘asian’ invariably means someone of Indian, Pakistani or Bengladeshi descent.

A Brit describing someone of oriental appearance would most likely describe them as ‘Chinese’ (even if they weren’t...)

It’s merely a culteral difference based on the fact that the first large scale immigration from Asia to the UK came from those former colonial countries.

[mmichaels1970]

You're right. In the States we use "of middle eastern descent".

This guy is Asian: