Terror in London

UPDATE:  Corrected various spelling errors this afternoon.  TypePad has been buggy today, and I posted this morning's essay without the benefit of Spell Check.

I've also been struck by the similarity between the London and Madrid bombs - numerous simultaneous explosions, all timed to detonate together, leaving no chance to evacuate facilities between attacks.  This tactic also keeps emergency response personnel tied up at distant locations, making it difficult for them to combine forces in order to render aid more effectively.  Apparently they learned some kind of lesson on 9/11.

It's probably a good bet that this was the work of numerous Al Qaeda "cells" and not an effort planned and monitored by a central figure like Osama Bin Laden.  I think that often we forget that Al Qaeda is not a centralized organization and does not employ a top-down command system, like a regular military.  In fact, Bin Laden serves more as a figurehead or inspirational leader (kind of like Che Guevara) rather than an actual commander.  Because Al Qaeda is not centralized, taking out one cell or one group of leaders (even Bin Laden) is not likely to cause the organization to collapse.   But taking out a large number of cells and a large number of leaders and foot soldiers has quite effectively hampered their ability to coordinate the hundreds of people and hundreds of thousands of dollars in financing required to pull off another 9/11-sized attack.  For that, we can thank our military.

As with Madrid, I am convinced that several dozen people probably spent years planning this attack.  Two similar attacks probably means that the multiple-simultaneous-bombs' approach is the new Al Qaeda strategy.  The only thing more devastating would be a large-scale weapon like a "suitcase nuke."  Hopefully Britain already has an idea of who the perps are.  They should spare no effort to immediately kill or capture all those who are responsible. 

____________________________

Amid getting the kids ready for Mother's Day Out and running a few errands this morning, I have been getting an earful regarding today's terrorist attacks in London.  No doubt the death toll will rise considerably, probably ending in the low hundreds killed and one to two thousand injured.  Please put these innocents at the forefront of your prayers today.

I'm going to post a few thoughts, then link to others who are thinking along the same lines.  I'll also include some news roundups.

First, I think it should be pointed out that the Brits have done a pretty darn good job keeping an eye on terrorist activity, and have foiled numerous terror plots and arrested a good number of suspected terrorists over the last four years.  After the Lockerbie bombing, the UK got serious with security measures and has been far ahead of us in working to prevent large-scale terrorist operations.  And they've been fighting the IRA for a long time, too.  But even the best security in the world doesn't guarantee a 100% success rate, as Israel knows all too well.

I also believe, as with the United States, that Al Qaeda has made a serious error in executing a direct attack on British soil.  Britain is a part of Europe, and like their continental brethren they have a very active and vocal Muslim community.  They also share a penchant for socialism, and have largely moved away from the Church and into a post-Christian mindset.  But they are also tenacious, stubborn, and tough.  They survived the hardships of travel and warfare and succeeded in colonizing more land than any other nation on earth.  And they have a unique respect for human rights and justice, as the Magna Charta and common law attest.  And their resourcefulness, creativity, ingenuity, and competitive spirit has been rivaled only by the United States.

This isn't the first time that London has been the target of terror.  It rained from the skies for nearly a year in 1940 and 1941, when the Nazis targeted London and virtually every other major city in the British isles for nightly bombing raids.  London was hit particularly hard, with St. Paul's Cathedral, The Tower of London, The British Museum, Buckingham Palace, and Westminster Abby all seriously damaged by German bombs.  Most of the bombs that fell on London were designed to frighten and demoralize the British in anticipation of a German invasion.  But as continental Europe crumbled under the mighty German military machine, Britain stood their ground until Hitler called off the raids and directed his armies against the Soviet Union.

They also have the right man for the job in Prime Minister Tony Blair.  It will be up to the historians to decide whether or not he ranks with Churchill as an all-time great war leader, but his resolve and clear-mindnedness regarding the dangers of appeasement and the task of winning a decisive victory against the forces of Islamo-facism are to be applauded.  Unlike so many in continental Europe, Blair has not budged one bit and has not given any hint that Britain will ever participate in ransoms, bargains, or other acts of negotiation with or capitulation to Islamic terrorists.  And the world should be grateful. 

No doubt the hand-wringers are already rehearsing their "we told you so" and "if you had only listened to us and not gotten involved" speeches.  Unfortunately we must endure their empty nonsense like we must endure cockroaches and the flu.  Britons learned their lesson 65 years ago when they tried to appease Adolf Hitler.

 

A few days ago, Stones Cry Out posted an excerpt from Gen. Douglas MacArthur's superb farewell speech, delivered to Congress in 1951 after he was asked by President Truman to step down as commander of the American forces in Korea.  I believe - especially now - that MacArthur's words are worth considering again:

      I know war as few other men now living   know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes.

      Indeed, on the second day of September, 1945, just following the surrender of the Japanese nation on the battleship Missouri, I formally cautioned as follows:

"Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful.

"Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, our Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence, an improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh."

      But once war is forces upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

      In war there is no substitute for victory.

 There are some who for varying reasons would appease Red China. They are blind to history's clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement had led to more than a sham peace.

      Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only alternative. Why, my soldiers asked of me, surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field? I could not answer. (emphasis added)

Today, we are still paying the price for our indecision in Korea.  And if a nuclear North Korea ever decides to attack its neighbors, MacArthur's words will ring even more true.  The lesson from today's London attacks is clear:  until Western civilization is utterly defeated, our enemies will not rest.

Neither should we.

________________________________

Moonbats at Democratic Underground are already blaming Bush

Kos kidz go nuts too.  "I wish John Kerry were president right now."  Michelle Malkin has more moonbat insanity.

LGF has linked to a Getty Images archive of pictures from the bombing scenes

George Bin-Galloway has already started the hand-wringing.  More on this at WizBang.

Mac's Mind says, "Just like Karl Rove said - 'Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.'"

LaShawn Barber's blog roundup

Belmont Club's take.  "...there isn't enough room on the planet for Islamic terror and civilization."

Captain Ed's.  Glad to see he agrees with me regarding Britain's resolve against Hitler.

More good stuff at Double Toothpicks.

Michelle Malkin just posted a list of suspected and known terrorists (including 'shoe bomber' Richard Reid) who have recently resided in London or thereabouts.  I commented that the Brits have captured many suspected terrorists, but as Michelle points out there are still many more that Scotland Yard cannot detain because they have no criminal evidence against them.  Let's hope that changes soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Steve Bragg]

Thanks for the link. I've quoted part of your excellent post over at DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS.

[Aakash]

I just found your weblog, via the trackback listing of another blogger's entry, which I also just [manually] trackbacked.

I am also a Christian conservative, but I would likely disagree with you on many foreign policy matters. I wanted to briefly address your remarks about Britain's dealing with Islamic terrorism. I actually saw something on television yesterday, by a leading neoconservative scholar and commentator, that indicates that the U.K. and Blair administration has actually had a rather weak approach to domestic security. The following is the last paragraph of a comment that I posted this evening at John Hawkins' Right Wing News weblog.

...Many Tories and conservatives - in the U.K. and elsewhere - believe that Blair's policies have left them more vulnerable to terrorism and other serious catastrophes. Just yesterday, I saw the hawkish Daniel Pipes on television, asserting that Britain's excessive-tolerance of fanatic Islamic influences within its borders was a major security risk - and that their government had done the worst job, of all major European powers - in combatting these security risks. Guess what country he said had done the best job in this?

(I didn't note this in that comment post... But the answer to this question is actually... France!)