The Worldwide War on Islamists

I've posted several times about good news (and bad news) from the London front.

All along, I've been thinking that the way the attacks are carried out belies some logistical weaknesses on the part of the Islamist terrorists. I've also noticed that the attacks involved "home grown" agents as much as they involved foreign nationals--a serious problem for English police/military who try to ferret out and stop such attacks.

Now, I notice a post at MyPetJawa which has an interesting claim. It appears that pulling at the loose threads in the London investigation has unraveled threads all over the world.

Whatever problems the London terror cell had in pulling off their second attack (or blending into the woodwork after the first attack), they are definitely well-connected with similar groups worldwide.

In short, the London bombing isn't an English problem. It's part of a worldwide war. As is the Egyptian bombing that I have barely noticed. And the bombing in Spain last year. And the foreigners arrested by the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New Jersey this week.

I am reminded again that this is a worldwide war.

Back in Action

The Discovery lifted off yesterday.

I don't know how to respond to this news. We won't know how safe the thing is until they try to bring it back down.

The Shuttles have served the country well since the late 1970's. If I recall correctly, that's much longer than the projected lifespan of the project. Each shuttle was designed for a decade of use, according to this wikipedia page. The Colombia was the first shuttle launched, and had achieved twice that age when it was destroyed during re-entry two years ago.

I wonder if the folks at NASA are planning on a replacement for the Shuttle.

If I read the wikipedia page correctly, the Shuttle program as we now have it descended from plans laid in the 1960's right after the development of the Saturn V rocket system. NASA knew that it needed a reusable system, and it was also planning on supporting a space station and a permanent base on the Moon. A round of budget-cuts forced them to scale back on several fronts, and finally the Space Transportation System (also known as the Space Shuttle) was produced. The STS is not really a re-usable system, although the orbiter is. It has a "first stage" in the booster-rockets, which are discarded two and a half minutes into flight. It also has an expendable fuel tank which is discarded approximately 8 minutes into flight.

I do remember seeing research into Single-Stage-to-Orbit plans in Design News during the mid-1990's. At the time, I was in high school. My father received the Design News magazine at his workplace, and often brought it home to share with me.

One of those articles was about various models which had been proposed to replace the Space Shuttle with a vehicle which could achieve orbit without dropping any booster rockets or fuel tanks along the way.

Apparently, the McDonnel-Douglass company had an unmanned model of a SSTO project, called the Delta Clipper Experimental, or the DC-X. That model was part of an Air Force program, and had an extremely low initial-cost and usage overhead. Eventually, the Air Force shuffled the test-program off to NASA. Several records were set, but eventually a mechanical failure and a fuel-tank-leak combined to destroy the test-vehicle in a fire.

There was also the X-33 experimental vehicle, which was highly touted at its unveiling, but eventually scuttled. Apparently, the reasons involved the use of too many pieces of unproven technology in the design, and significant cost-overruns.

Which leaves us back where we started. What is going to replace the shuttle?

Or maybe, should NASA be the only agency in the nation working on space-travel?

Book Review: a slice of life from 18th-century Vienna

This book makes me view its author in a new light. It is set in Vienna during the late 1880's and early 1890's. The story surprised me with its attention to historical detail, to cultural patterns, and to the language, attitudes, and lifestyles in Vienna during that time.

Title: Vienna Days

Plot Elements: a royal funeral, a betrothal, unexplicable suicides, a coffee-house, the Viennese middle class, a group of renegade artists, a search for truth, a starving artist, private sketches, cartoons in newspapers, unhappy well-paid artists, and a search for meaning.

Characters: A young lawyer/artist fills a large role as central character for this work. One set of his acquaintances is in the Viennese middle-class. There are stodgy old men, prim matrons, well-behaved men and women women, less-well-behaved men and women, and a loving father. Each of these characters brings out some element of life in middle-class Vienna.

Another set of acquaintances is in the circle of artists he falls into. This circle has several dominant characters, but all of them are revolutionaries of some nature. Each has his own way of challenging the traditional, established order. Complaint about hypocrisy and lack of vision among the upper-class and the middle-class abound among these artists. Most of them have produced, in private or in public, art which is designed to shock the sensibilities of the bourgeois citizens of Vienna.

Literary quality: Higher than I expected. The book is very well-written, with skillful use of foreshadowing and a high attention to detail. Several surprises await the reader; these surprises are artfully presented.

In all, it is a very well-written story. It seems I'll be putting Mr. duToit's other novels on my list of things to read.

Council Fire

I just visited Grim's Hall, and received a pleasant surprise. Grim is a lover of the Great Outdoors, and has written often about the pleasures of spending time in the wilderness.

This time, he talks about cooking over a wood fire, and calls it a tie to his (our) ancestors.

Which reminded me of a chain of events I took part in recently; these events provided a similar tie to distant ancestors.

At the beginning of May, I found myself camping with my family in the backwoods of Western New York. One of my younger siblings was receiving a college degree. All of the immediate family came to celebrate. So did all of the living grand-parents.

Every night, the men of the family had discussions around the campfire. Three generations were present at the campfire, and the subjects we talked about ranged from trivial to serious. We discussed the future of the new graduate; we discussed good and bad decisions from the past; we mentioned pro and con points about each of our futures. We also discussed the fine art of living with other family members; we talked about personal boundaries, personal space, and the tensions in personal freedom, love, social duty and moral duty. We roasted marshmallows and talked about great marhmallow-roasts from the past; we enjoyed reminiscences of other camping trips; we talked about car-repair projects and house-repair projects. We talked about books read and events we'd seen. We talked about history, war, peace, depressions, and economic booms. We talked about jobs and vocations and the earning and spending of money.

In short, we held council-fires. We enjoyed something that our ancestors did in the distant past: a meeting of a family or clan around a fire. The combination of reunion, conversation, and recieving wisdom from the older family members is powerful. It is almost as powerful as the communal feeling of knowing that this is our fire, a flame kindled in a desire to do things together.

I have been at many family meetings, organized reunions, and holiday feasts. I have been at few council-fires, and remember them much more fondly.

Gun Story

I had the distinct pleasure of introducing someone to firearms today.

Not in the sense of helping them fire one, but in the sense of showing them a weapon, showing them how it worked, and letting them hold it.

It began when I was doing a walking tour through town with a friend of mine--a young lady from the neighborhood with whom I am acquainted. This young lady had none of her usual friends or acquaintances in town to do stuff with. In showing pity on her, I also gave myself something to do this afternoon.

During the walk, I mentioned shooting my new Ruger pistol. I also said that I could show my friend the gun, as I would be cleaning it soon.

When I took out the gun, she was a little surprised. Her words were something along the lines of "I've never seen a gun before."

I showed her where the cartridge sat when the gun was fired, and the general worksing of trigger, hammer, bolt, magazine, and shell-ejector. After making sure it was unloaded, I let her hold it. ("This is the first time I've ever held a gun!")

I then stripped the weapon for cleaning, and showed her the bolt, the receiver/barrel, the spring-clip assembly, and the handle as separate pieces.

As I cleaned the weapon, we talked about gun-stuff. I told her about other guns I'd borrowed and fired, various state and Federal laws governing purchasing guns, etc.

Somewhere along the way, she asked about the assault-weapons ban. At which point, I began asking her questions.

Did she know about the National Firearms Act of 1934? (BansHeavily regulates sale of fully-automatic weapons of all kinds in the United States. Still in effect.)

Did she know what an assault weapon was as defined in the 1994 ban? That ban defined an assault weapon as a semiautomatic rifle which accepts a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:

• collapsing stock
• pistol grip
• flash suppressor, or threaded barrel for attaching one
• bayonet-mounting lug
• grenade launcher
  

I described to her the difference between military weapons and hunting weapons. A typical deer rifle has larger caliber than an M-16. It may be able to fire at the same rate, depending on how new it is. However, it was probably not designed to be stripped and cleaned in the field without any tools, and definitely does not have a "full auto" switch for when a horde of targets charges over the top of the nearest hill.

I also described several varieties of varmint guns which are functionally equivalent to a military rifle like the M-16 in everything except the full-auto switch, but are not assault weapons--because they have a standard rifle grip and no bayonet mounts, flsh suppressors, collapsing stocks, or grenade launchers. Then I mentioned that since the AWB went into place, gang members have tended to invest in illegally-acquired 9mm pistols rather than assault rifles; pistols are easier to hide.

I was rather surprised to be talking to someone who does not know this. On the other hand, I haven't talked to a lot of people about guns yet...

The stuff I forgot to mention: the infamous "Beltway Sniper" wasn't using a banned gun. He was using a legal gun (Bushmaster XR-15) which had been on sale at a gun shop--before he stole it.

And maybe I'll point the next person I talk about assault weapons with to the AWB weapons quiz, hosted at this site. Scroll to the bottom to take the quiz.

Two sets of London Attacks

One more piece of data fell into place about the 7-July and 21-July attacks on London subways.

Apparently the explosive being used has a rather short shelf-life(Hat tip: Mike at MyPetJawa). Which is probably why it has never been produced for military or commercial purposes.

The article doesn't go to great lengths about the material used and its sources--but I suspect it's one of those things that a chemist could make with an hour (or two) of careful labor, from ingredients found in a drug-store. However, if the chemist is suddenly detained in another country while the leaders of the local Terrorist Club^TM are busy hiding from the Met Police, then I'm not surprised that the terrorists would use faulty explosives.

It's another sign that the organization/logistical wing of this particular terrorist cell in Britain is a few cards short of a full deck. That, all by itself, quiets my original fears that the IRA had decided to lend these Islamists a helping hand.

More London News

SEE BOTTOM FOR UPDATE
CORRECTION (17 Aug. 2005): a news report with better information on the event is commented on here.

London has had a bad week of it.

This could also be good news: police stop a man who gave many sgns of being an aspiring terrorist-bomber boarding a subway car. Considering that the man might have had a hand on a thumb-switch at his waist, the police eliminated the threat expeditiously.

The London Police (and the Scotland Yard) seem to have a good handle on the event. Officers of the Yard were telling the important facts to the press before the hour was over. Either the information was not too surprising, or the Yard is incredibly efficient at communicating with its field men.

According to Wikipeda, approximately 7% of the police in the London area are trained to use firearms (firarms are only issued to trained and certified officers). But one of those men was at the subway station, using a semi-auto pistol, this morning.

Of all the subway stations in town, a man tried to sneak aboard this one. Of all the places in town for a squad of police officers (including a firearm-bearing officer) to be, one was there to intercept him.

It could be luck. Or (as Donald Sensing points out) the police could have had a really good lead from a disaffected member of the local Terrorist Club. Or maybe a couple of family members told police about strange meetings, suspicious packages...or someone walking out the door wearing a heavy winter coat in the middle of July.

I have no idea if there is a general "shoot-to-kill" policy in effect, where armed policemen are stationed. Or if the SAS is backing up the Met police. Or if this was a particular location staked out on good intelligence by special agents. Or if a set of unlikely coincidences led to today's events.

It is still perfectly possible that an innocent man died today--which would indeed make this a terrible tragedy. But it is too early to jump to conclusions.

AFTERTHOUGHT: a commenter at Captain's Quarters gives some input on the news references to the "Asian" man who was shot:

In fact in Britain the word "Asian" is commonly and primarily used to describe people whose origin is the Indian sub-continent as they are the great majority of Asians in Britain.

UPDATE I: I suddenly want to rescind my comment that the dead man might have been innocent. Found an excellent roundup of news stories and quotes over at The Moderate Voice, including the news story that says the guy hurtled a ticket barrier and ran towards the car as policemen told him to stop.

And, he asks the question I haven't thought of yet: Does this mean suicide bombers are migrating out of Palestine (their native habitat for 20 years now) and Iraq (2 years) and into the Western world?

UPDATE II: Now the Scotland Yard is saying that the man was not connected with the bombings of the 21st, and that the shooting was a mistake.

Something doesn't make sense about this: a man left a house which was under surveillance, he ran when challenged, and was wearing an unseasonably heavy coat (excellent method for hiding explosives strapped to the body), and vaulted over barriers designed to make people board a subway in an orderly fashion.

Is this the result of GIGO applied to police operatons based on anonymous tips? Was someone too eager with a pistol? Was someone too eager to order "stop at all costs"?

I'll assume (for the moment) tha if the police had found any explosive devices on his body, that they would have announced it. Thus, I feel safe assuming that at least one claim from the news yesterday (that a witness saw a bomb-belt on the man's body) was untrue.

Musings on London Attacks

I've had thoughts about the London attacks (the bombs detonated on 7-July, not the ones from today) ricocheting around my mind for some time now.

Some salient facts:

• The terrorists weren't obviously suicide bombers during their run-up to the attacks. One had just bought a nice new car. In another case, the family of the terrorist reported him missing.
  
• The bombs that detonated included a significant homemade component. I didn't know about the explosives I could create from a trip to the drug-store.
• The terrorists did not appear to use expensive, high-yield explosives of the type developed and used by American and British military forces.
• The terrorists acted is if they knew their turf--they timed the attacks to get the most attention from British and European leaders, and they coordinated the attack with the apparent knowledge that regular subway users have.
• The first three bomb-blasts all occurred in 50 seconds, the last one came nearly an hour later.
  
• At the very least, we know that Wahhabists from Saudi Arabia aren't the only ones at the terrorist party.
• The guilty group includes two who visited Pakistan twice in the past two years.
• As was noted several times by Michelle Malkin, London has become a breeding ground for terrorists.
  

I can remember seeing (in a news story I haven't been able to track down again) that the terrorists had even bought two-way tickets for their trip.

We don't know whether the bomb-carriers knew they were on a suicide mission. There is evidence that can be sought out: Palestinian suicide bombers have an extensive network of support staff in place for every would-be suicide bomber. The person is surrounded by people who continually remind them of the great deed that they will do for Allah, who help the person prepare for the big day, and who keep all nay-sayers and questioners out of sight. If such a network is discovered in/around the London attackers, then we will know that they were prepared as suicide bombers.

However, if the description here is accurate, at least one of the young attackers was a family man--married, with a child 8 months old. Would any terrorist organization choose such a person as a suicide bomber when there ought to be young, unmarried males handy?

I suspect that the terrorists had received tips and training from friends in the Middle East. The leaders should have gotten a copy of Suicide Bombing for Dummies (or its equivalent) from those sources.

Other questions arise, especially in the light of today's bombings. Did the use of home-made explosives, reputedly unstable, make an accidental discharge occur? Three of the four bombing sites were inside subway-tunnels. A possible place for an accidental discharge--but the combination of all 3 locations, and the effect it had on the subway system, seems to indicate that those three locations were chosen carefully. Also, the subway explosions happening in such a short window of time indicates a probable timer of some kind.

Which raises the question of whether the bus-explosion was accidental, the result of a poor timer, or remotely-triggered. Or was it a faulty timer with a remote-trigger-backup?

There are larger questions swirling around those attacks. Was this the best attack that this group could pull off? Do they have more attacks "in the pipeline"? Is their logistical/supply support up to any more such attacks within the month? (That question has been bugging me for some time. The answer appears to be no, if today's attacks are from the same group. The plans may have been similar, but the attack was less carefully-timed. At least one bomb was a dud, if this story is to be believed.)

At the very least, the situation looks more like a terror cell that is not nearly as powerful as Al Qaeda was, when they had the support of the Taliban. For example, no one is doing what Bin Laden after the 11-Sept. attack--taking to international television and bragging about the attack. These terrorists have a much harder time mounting a big attack, and doing it with flair. The world has changed since then--especially since they were run out of Afghanistan, and their allies and affiliates began soaking up volunteers to throw into the fight in Iraq.

At the very least, it must be harder for such terrorists to communicate with each other, coordinate funding and support, and get the planning minds they need into the right place to set up an attack.

Return from Blogging Break: Movie Review

Having done several book reviews (and returned from a weekend of recreation away from computers), I decided to review a recently-seen movie.

Title: Batman Begins

Plot Elements: childhood frights, economics and crime, wandering incognito multimillionaires, secret societies, the nature of fear, the nature of justice, the abilities of a single man, and the power of friendship.

Characters: Plenty of good ones. The center of the story is Bruce Wayne, and his creation of a pair of alter egos--the millionaire playboy and the fearsome Batman. The man who finds and trains Wayne is also well-portrayed. Their disagreement over justice and mercy develops quite naturally into the films' stunning climax.
There are almost too many good supporting characters. None of them could be removed without hurting the story. The network of friends and helpers who Bruce enlists is small but powerful.

Rewatch Potential: high. This is one of those movies that I might visit the theater again to see, before it is released on DVD.

Remember that Bush Recession?

I haven't made a practice of following economic news, until I noticed something that Fishkite had posted. Then I remembered that I hadn't noticed much about employment and unemployment figures since last year's election cycle, when there was always some form of bad economic news.

Now things are much quieter. Almost too quiet.

Almost as if...while, as if no news was good news. Unemployment is under 5% for the first time since 2000. In 2000 it was rising, though. Last time we saw unemployment figures with a negative value for the derivative (that's decreasing, for those who haven't suffered through Calculus), it was 1997.

The data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is available online, here. I learned some interesting stuff there. The last time that unemployment was below 5% was in the years 1997-2000. Previous to that, unemployment stayed above 5% from 1970 to 1997. It had spent five years below 5%, from 1965 to 1970.

After comparing the absolute numbers of unemployed Americans, I discerned that the number of unemployed Americans has been lower before--between the years 1995 and 2001. However, during that time, the total number of employable Americans was rising steadily.

Also, there are footnotes for January of 2000, 2003, 2004, and 2005. At those times, the stastics used to establish the number of civilian workers (employable Americans) was changed. Those changes account for spikes in the number of civilian workers, and may make comparisons between years a little less useful.

However, it's good news overall.

As for the causes of this fall in unemployment: my first suspect would be the decreased taxes for which President Bush is so well-known.

That tax cut has already been noted by tax experts for having increased the total amount of money brought in by the Federal Government through taxes.

One more thought about London attack

This one is provided by Doc Russia, former reckless 18-year-old. If he was a sociologist, he might blather on about "implicit support found in various social/religious structures in the subculture". Instead, he puts the whole question simply, by saying that someone in authority had expressed approval of murderous terrorist attacks.

His thoughts may be more important than all the claims about blood feuds, backlashes, and hijacked religions of peace.

14 Juillet 1789

On this date, a little more than two centuries ago, trouble was brewing in the country of France. King Louis XVI was dealing with a bankrupt government. A National Assembly was attempting to write a constitution. The King was trying to keep a hold on his authority while he dealt with this National Assembly.

Just days ago, the King had summarily banished several important ministers, and replaced them with men less amenable to change. Large contingents of soldiers (mercenaries) loyal to the King were holding key positions. Small outbreaks of armed violence had occurred between various mobs and the Royal soldiers. There had also been fights between factions of the military. The events of the week had been spinning rapidly towards civil war.

A mob had formed outside the Bastille prison, looking for gunpowder and weapons to be used against the Loyalist military. By the end of the day, the small mob had overwhelmed the prison. The events triggered by the storming of Bastille led to the rapid downfall of the monarchy and the beginning of the First Republic.

It wasn't the first overthrow of a monarchy in Europe. It also wasn't the first time a King had been executed by the revolutionaries. But it was a watershed event, and remains important in world history. It gives us a series of results--some laudable, some less so--from the Enlightenment ideals. It also heralded the end of absolute monarchy on the European mainland.

Thoughts on London Attack--the Hatfields and McCoys

I've been trying for some time to fit the London attacks into some kind of tactical matrix, so I can understand the attacks better.

The facts that stick out in my mind are:

• Small explosive packages
• Four or five such packages, detonated within an hour or two
• Explosions seem optimized to cause trouble with London transport system, not to kill large numbers of people
• No easily identifiable culprit (in terms of masterminds/organizations) claiming credit for international television

This is an interesting riddle, fraught with unknowns. Was the limiting factor the supply of explosives? Inability to produce/procure poison gas? Was the goal of mass confusion more important than the number killed?

Divergent interpretations abound, but the most interesting observation was made by Lee Harris at Tech Central Station (Hat tip: Wretchard). Harris claims that War is not the correct descriptive term for the behavior that the Islamist terrorists were engaging in. He claims that it has most of the hallmarks of a blood feud.

The model of the blood feud assumes that there are two important groups in the world: Us and Them. A few simple phrases will help describe the mindset involved:

• They will always exist in one form or another.
• They need to reminded of their inferiority and loathesomeness every once in a while.
• They exist mainly to give Us opportunities to show Our superiority.

In most blood feuds, there is a symmetry. The Hatfields and McCoys probably said such things about each other. Similarly for the Montagues and the Capulets in Shakespeare's Vienna.

But how does a blood feud work when it is asymmetrical? When the recipient of such hatred (that amorphous entity known as The Western World) doesn't measure itself by the inferiority of Muslims?

On the other hand, how many members of the Muslim world measure their self-respect by the inferiority of the West? The attacks are the actions of small minorities. How many men didn't attack but wished they could have? How many want to stop the attacks?

The same can be asked about the Western world. How many Westerners think that Muslim countries exist to be pounded on by Western Armies? How many think that the Islamic culture needs a drastic change?

Evidence could be found to claim that the blood-feud mentality is bilateral. However, I get the sense that the blood-feud is asymmetric. That is, a large segment of the Western world would be happier of these Islamists forgot their blood-feud mentality. Or if the Islamists could no longer get their hands on the funding and political support necessary to threaten the rest of the world.

I have no such data about the Islamic world. I would be very happy if most of the Muslim world has the attitude described here. But the jury is still out on that.

Life with a pistol

After successful purchase of a Ruger pistol a few weeks ago, I have only been able to use it once.

That use was enjoyable, mostly because it ended two months of non-shooting. My uncle, with whom I shot, also let me use his Colt Python revolver. The property he owns is in an area where it was both legal and safe for us to shoot. I can also say that if events had allowed, would could have spent several more hours shooting. It was very enjoyable.

At any rate, I was looking forward to more shooting once I arrived back up here. After all, my uncle lives 9 hours of driving away from my current residence. However, resumption of shooting was delayed by some problems.

First, a word about cleaning. Ruger pistols have a reputation of not needing much cleaning or other maintenance. However, I don't want to get in a habit of not cleaning things that could use cleaning. Besides, I wanted to learn how to take apart my new pistol. So I began disassembly for cleaning.

Following the directions, I quickly disassembled the Mark III pistol into its components--the grip/handle, the barrel/receiver, the bolt, and the mainspring housing.

Cleaning was relatively simple. Afterwards, as I followed the directions for for re-assembly, I hit a snag. The instructions for the re-assembly said that in the final step, I should be able to swing the mainspring housing back into place in the handle. But every time I tried, the mainspring housing wouldn't go back into place.

After an hour of effort, I put it off until I could find a gunsmith. Other events caused the gunsmith-visit to wait until late last week, when I found myself back in the shop where I had purchased the weapon.

After twenty minutes of wrestling with the problem, the gunsmith was able to re-assemble the pistol.

In reconstructing his actions, I discovered something about the documentation that Ruger had supplied with the pistol. On this particular model, the documentation said that I had to insert an empty magazine into the pistol after I had put the barrel/receiver and bolt back in place. After pulling the trigger (to make sure that the hammer was in the uncocked position--the pistol was definitely not loaded), the instructions told me to remove the magazine from the handle before I attempted to insert the mainspring housing.

I discovered that leaving the magazine in the handle at this point allowed the hammer to swing free, which made the final stage of installing the mainspring housing possible. Removing the magazine before I inserted the mainspring housing left the hammer in a fixed position which absolutely prevented the mainspring housing from swinging into place properly.

I don't know how common this is--but it is what I discovered.

At any rate, my pistol is now back in action. If I can find a place to shoot it.

The TechU I study at has a rifle-range in the basement of the athletic building. But I have yet to find it open during the summer--so I'll probably look elsewhere.

One more thought about London

In my earlier post about the attacks in London, I specifically did not mention a thought that has been buzzing around the back of my mind since the events first happened.

Now I see that Grim has mentioned it, and he looks to have a better understanding of the overall situation.

Were the Irish involved?

It's definitely worth pursuing, though the evidence is far too thin for conclusions.

Back Home

After a week spent travelling, visiting family, holding council-fires at a camp-site, and more travelling, I arrive home.

My notes from the trip are not many, although I enjoyed breaking my travel by some camping and hiking near St. Ignace, Michigan. Part of that time I spent on Mackinac Island. It's a beautiful place, and also very busy for an area that allows no motor vehicle traffic at all. A mix of bicycle, horse, and pedestrian travellers were on most of the major roads.

I return home, contemplate my course over the month and a half before the fall semester, and turn to the news that I missed over the past week or so.

Except that the striking news just happened today, if I read the date-lines right.

A series of explosions struck the public transit system in London, apparently timed to help the G8 summit start "with a bang".

The data is pretty thin right now. The only suspects that come to mind are the IRA and various Islamist-fascist organizations.

Naturally, the Islamists will be all over the headlines. I won't be surprised if this was their work; I would be surprised but not shocked if some Irish group claims credit.

However, since Al-Qaeda claimed credit for knocking down the Twin Towers in NY, they have been chased out of Afghanistan. Their operatives have been kept busy (and killed by the hundreds) harassing American soldiers in Iraq, when they could have spent such efforts against America and its friends around the world. Hence, I wonder if they will want to take credit so quickly for these acts.

On the other hand, they will remain dangerous to the world at large, and gain credibility among their pool of likely applicants, if they do take credit.

At the very least, we will see how Britain responds to this attack. We must remember that London is a metropolis that is driven by its trains and buses, in the way that American metropolises depend on taxis, cars, and freeways. This is an attack on everyone in the city.

UPDATE: Seen some interesting facts cropping up, gathered by Michelle Malkin, and Dr. Shackleford's assistant.

Suffice to say that the bombers used small amounts of explosives, and appear to have a good working knowledge of the London subway/bus system.

It is also becoming apparent that Britain has not been aggressively hunting down known or suspected terrorists (of Middle Eastern origin, that is). Even ignoring 2-year-old extradition requests on a man connected bombings in Morocco and Madrid.

Playing with fire is a dangerous thing. And it looks like British law-enforcement and diplomatic agencies have been playing with fire.

My question is, how many more such attacks are in the planning stage in Britain? What about the rest of Europe? Could these guys get access to Mexico, and walk across the border? If they got access to Canada, could they come south with relative impunity?