London Expecting Holiday Terror Attack
Posted on December 21, 2006
British counter-terrorism officials have reportedly said that it will be “a miracle” if London doesn’t suffer an attack by Islamist terrorists over the holidays.
From ABC’s The Blotter [emphasis added]:
British police have been quietly carrying out a series of key arrests as they continue to track at least six active “plots” tied to what they call “al Qaeda of England.”“It is not a matter of if there will be an attack, but how bad the attack will be,” an intelligence official told ABCNews.com.
Authorities say they are seeking at least 18 suspected suicide bombers.
Westerners avoided going medieval on radical Muslims following 9/11, even the really mouthy, really stupid ones. There’s no telling if that patience will continue following another serious terror attack. I wouldn’t place any heavy bets on it.
It would serve moderate Muslims living in the Western world well to start condemning Islamist terrorists as loudly, forcefully, unconditionally, and publicly as possible. Publicity stunts like the blatant provocation pulled off by the flying imams have soured the general public’s mood toward Muslims.
A high-profile terrorist attack during the holidays could set off vigilante retaliatory attacks.
» Filed Under Uncategorized
Trackback URL
Comments
7 Responses to “London Expecting Holiday Terror Attack”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
I am afraid that we won’t see any moderates condemning Radicals anytime soon.
Emphasis mine:
Your choice of words and the lack of an unconditional condemnation of such “vigilante retaliatory attacks” suggest you think they would be justified on some level.
Unless you don’t consider yourself a moderate Westerner, it takes a lot of the steam out of your argument that moderate Muslims are in some way responsible.
Why would you condemn ‘vigilante retaliatory attacks’against the radical Muslims? Now, if he had only said Muslims then you might have a point.
1. I’m not sure about the UK, but vigilante retaliation has been illegal here for a long time. Even Jack Ruby received a stiff sentence.
2. How do you determine the moderates from the radicals?
3. How do you determine those with radical views from those with radical views that intend to act illegally?
Bottom line: if vigilantes could target the correct people, the government should stop spending billions and just hire a few vigilantes. Vigilante retaliation is wrong, regardless of how pretty the wrapping paper is.
Your abilities of distortion are legend, Jeff. It is obvious that the sentence was referencing retaliation aimed at the people responsible — radical Muslims. In fact, the subject is stated in the first paragraph.
Why can’t leftists read?
Oh here we go again. You can’t tell the moderates from the radicals! (Oh really? So the Muslim that condemns Osama vociferously is the same as the one who praises him?) What you’re really laying the groundwork for there, albeit unknowingly (for you are apparently too stupid to realize it) is the old racist canard, “All XXX look the same.” To which, many have added, “Kill ‘em all.” The very scenario that the left abhors is the one that it creates.
I can’t read? From the article:
Was bluto suggesting that these vigilantes would run around stomping the scattered pieces? Somehow, I think he was referring to the surviving members of the community.
No, I said:
You don’t seem to care much about the difference, but I’m pretty sure we still have a special little law that defends radical views.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m “laying the groundwork” for a presumption of innocence.
It sounds like you’re the one saying it, not me. I’m saying the exact opposite.