Anybody have an idea why they are referred to as “potentially viable”? They were not rigged to go off?
Why London and not the US?
If the people who set these are located through tapes of one of the numerous street video cameras they have in London, would it change your mind about that type of surveillance in the US?
“If the people who set these are located through tapes of one of the numerous street video cameras they have in London, would it change your mind about that type of surveillance in the US?”
First, what makes you think that sort of surveillance isn’t available in many places now? Many criminals have been caught via review of private and police security cameras. If you are in public and think you aren’t being filmed, you haven’t looked around enough.
Second, the surveillance cameras apparently did not stop the London car bombers. I’m assuming at this early stage that it was ineptness.
London is rapidly becoming Londonstan with a very large Muslim population that does not assimilate. Mohammed will be the number one name for newborns this year. If you think we have an immigration problem, look at London, or much of Europe for that matter.
The US has areas of large Muslim concentration as well, but they are assimilating much better. It is going to be hard to find home grown suicide bombers here. Of course, these weren’t suicide bombs in this case.
That is not to say it won’t happen here, or that I am not surprised it hasn’t already. It is only to say London is extremely high risk.
I think the massive camera setup in London is just awful, but, yes, lots of incidents like this could change my mind.
Listening to WLS it would appear that the cars failed to explode as planned. The first vehicle was reported as “Smoking” by an ambulance. Not sure about the second one.
As far as I know I’m not even 100% positive that this is even related to the Muslim population, but there is a high possibility that is the case. That being said I think as the other poster mentioned “Muhammed” should be the number one name in London in 2007 and was #2 in 2006.
Around here we have Muslims, but they drive BMW’s and are named “John”. Many are Americanized unlike London. The Muslims in London are similar to the illegal Hispanic population here in that the tendency to emphasis origin country culture is pretty strong. Thankfully most Hispanics are Catholic and a tad more laid back about killing people. Not a whole lot of “Radical Catholicism” going on in Mexico. The first time I see a mass crucification though I’m going on an ethnic cleansing rampage…smiley for the humor impaired.
~Matt
Not a whole lot of “Radical Catholicism” going on.
You really need to spend more time listening to the deep thinkers in our country, like Rosie O’Donnell. She will set you straight so that you understand that fundamentalist Christians are a bigger threat than fundamentalist Muslims.
Hope that helps get you right thinking.
**If the people who set these are located through tapes of one of the numerous street video cameras they have in London, would it change your mind about that type of surveillance in the US? **
Nah. I’m a live free or die type.
Besides, the justification for adopting Big Brother is getting lamer by the month. It would be one thing if you offered me the alternative of stopping the bombs before they blew up in exchange for the All Seeing Eye. But just catching the guys after the fact? Not even interesting.
Reports are now that the bomb didn’t detonate despite repeated attempts. One report said the bombers didn’t get the fuel air mixture right, which I can imagine is very tricky. It sounds like there is too much grad inflation at Jihad U these days. Tough when your instructors keep getting killed I imagine.
For Vitus’s benefit, the cops know the bomber well, being someone they had in custody but had to let go for lack of evidence. Not that he cares about such things. A series of bombs going off is chump change in the scheme of things. No real threat there.
**being someone they had in custody but had to let go for lack of evidence. Not that he cares about such things. A series of bombs going off is chump change in the scheme of things. No real threat there. **
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. That they should be able to detain people indefinitely without evidence? Oh, wait . . .
Where’s the real threat to liberty here? In an incompetent car bomber, or in a government that can detain people without evidence?
First, what makes you think that sort of surveillance isn’t available in many places now? Many criminals have been caught via review of private and police security cameras. If you are in public and think you aren’t being filmed, you haven’t looked around enough.
I didn’t say we don’t have it. But I know there has been objection to it voiced in this forum. My question related to objection, not existence.
Yet again Art is pontificating upon a subject he knows nothing about, a lack of knowledge or facts having never stopped him from offering an opinion in the past.
As a London resident I dont recognise the London that he’s talking about but clearly he’s better placed in Florida to offer an opinion than I might be living in London.
Crack on!
Regards
Mohamed formerly known as Andrew
The real threat is people who aren’t interested in aggressively finding and locking up such killers.
There have been battles in England as there have here over terrorism investigation and prosecution. It will be interesting to see if this guy was let go as a result of those battles.
Well, interesting to me. Apparently not to you.
In this country, maybe we just need to let all the Gitmo prisoners go, seeing as how we probably can’t make a criminal prosecution since as how our soldiers are too busy being soldiers rather than policemen with chain of evidence procedures and the like. I doubt any of them were Mirandized, believe it or not. If they kill a few hundred or few thousand other people, well things just happen. No real threat there in the big picture.
As a serial pontificator myself, I have to come to Art’s partial defense.
It strikes me that people who make accusations of pontificating aren’t really objecting to the pontificator’s lack of knowledge or facts. Rather, they just don’t like the facts themselves.
Maybe they haven’t sent out the memo to all you Londoners yet, but the reports are the Mohamed is, in fact, going to be the most popular boys name this year. As recently ago as 2004, Art could have said only that Mohamed is “growing much more popular” in England, and you would have excoriated him as a hysterical nutcase.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070606/lf_afp/lifestylebritainnamemohammed
Like a lot of Europeans, you’re in denial about your situation as regards Muslims. You’re sitting there on your couch looking at a scorpion insisting that it’s really a nice fuzzy kitten, and since it’s your living room, you should know. Please. London doesn’t have a problem with radical, unassimilated Muslims just like France doesn’t have a demographic problem.
Crack on, indeed.
The real threat is people who aren’t interested in aggressively finding and locking up such killers
If that’s the “real” threat, we really have nothing to worry about, because I don’t know of anyone who isn’t interested in aggressively finding and locking up terrorists. I know a lot of people who just don’t think that the principles of the republic shouldn’t be sacrificed to do so, is all. (Yeah, I know, we’re talking about us now, OK?)
I haven’t read the book, so I can’t vouch for it, but the fact that it exists should tell you something at least.
Sorry, but really having trouble reconciling that post with this statement above:
“But just catching the guys after the fact? Not even interesting.”
Allow me to clarify, then. I don’t like having the watchful eye of goverment peering at me everywhere I go. I think it smacks of a totalitarian state, and I don’t give a damn if the Supreme Court says it’s perfectly legal.
I despise the idea of government watching me and my fellow citizens everywhere we go, outside of our homes (maybe, hopefully, for the time being) with our shades drawn. I think that kind of monitoring is antithetical to the spirit of freedom, and tolerance of it is corrosive to our liberty.
I could see the argument for accepting something so odious if what we were promised in return was literally lifesaving. I wouldn’t agree with it, but I can see how that might be persuasive: “Hey, look, just let us monitor all of you 24/7. If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide. It’ll save lives.” I have a low opinion of that line of reasoning, but I have a lower opinion if the payoff isn’t even saved lives, but only a captured killer after the fact.
I agree with your clarification. I am still not seeing how it jives with original statements, but what do I know?
Not much if you ask andrewmc.
My original statement was intended to mean that I didn’t find the trade-off interesting, not that I didn’t think agressively prosecuting this guy interesting.
I suppose you could also just check out wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonistan_(term)
I know the term must be accurate, since it was coined by the French.
I could be wrong, but I believe that Andrewmc’s reference was more likely directed to Art’s use of the term Londonstan, as if it was being “overrun” by Anglo-Arabs. Or just first/second generation Arabs.
You and Art latched on to the name thing, which is true. But the rest of Art’s post was opinion dressed as fact. I believe that was the issue to which Andrew responded.