July 2, 2007

London Bombers Drove To Glasgow

CNN now reports that the Glasgow attack was staged by the same men who drove the car bombs in London. British authorities have arrested two more men in connection with the series of failed attacks, and they have concluded that al-Qaeda planned and launched the attacks:

Authorities suspect the two men who rammed an explosives-laden vehicle into Glasgow's airport on Saturday are the same people who parked two car bombs in central London a day earlier, security sources told CNN. ...

One of the suspects, who is in critical condition at Royal Alexandra Hospital near Glasgow, is a doctor at the hospital where he is being treated for severe burns, according to the woman who owns his rental house.

It is believed that he shared the house on Neuk Crescent Street in the small Scottish village of Houston, about 3 kilometers (2 miles) from Glasgow's airport, with the other suspect who is in police custody.

Investigators had "been on the trail" of the men as they launched the last pitiful attack on Glasgow's airport, which did little damage to anything but the car and the men themselves. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that al-Qaeda had masterminded the plot:

"It is clear that we are dealing, in general terms, with people who are associated with al-Qaida," Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Sunday.

Meanwhile, police blew up a car at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley, where the burned terrorist is in critical condition. They said the car was linked to the London car-bomb attempts, reinforcing the link between those attacks and the Glasgow attack. Raids occurred throughout Britain as investigators have used the initial evidence to start rolling up support resources for these terrorists, who apparently did not hide their trail very well.

One interesting point about CNN's coverage: even though they included quotes from Gordon Brown's statement, they never mention his identification of al-Qaeda as the culprit.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/10411

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference London Bombers Drove To Glasgow:

» U.K. Terrorists Are Doctors from The American Mind
U.K. bomb disposal experts blew up two objects near the hospital where one of the terrorists who attacked the Glasgow airport was being treated: A CNN crew stationed at the the Royal Alexandra Hospital in the Paisley area of the Scottish city heard two... [Read More]

Comments (29)

Posted by docjim505 | July 2, 2007 7:58 AM

I don't know why the British are putting so much effort into this. I mean, obviously the plotters are incompetent and didn't kill anybody. Even if they had, what's a few dozen - or even a few thousand - deaths? Nothing worth worrying about. The Brits would be much better served if they'd spend their time worrying about REAL threats to the planet, like global warming or a lack of free health care for everybody in the world.

/sarcasm

Posted by MarkT | July 2, 2007 8:04 AM

The CNN article does have one mention of Al Queda:

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told CNN's "Late Edition" that it was too early to tell who is behind the attack, but it is "a reasonable possibility" that it may be an al Qaeda-linked group.

How many politicians speculating that AQ was involved would you prefer in the article?

Posted by rbj | July 2, 2007 8:10 AM

Don't these car bombers know that using cars and gasoline for explosives is contributing to Goebbel's Warmening? They need to be more environmentally aware with their attacks.

Posted by always right | July 2, 2007 8:31 AM

I failed to see the be-labored point in the previous related thread about the car bomb being not a bomb, only an "incinerating device".

Posted by NoDonkey | July 2, 2007 8:38 AM

Got this from the Strategy Page:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20070701.aspx

The recent bungled bombing in the UK, fits in with this analysis.

Our media prefers to portray Islamic terrorists as unbeatable masterminds as victims, as heroes, (as far as Michael Moore is concerned).

The media (as usual) is painfully wrong on all three counts.

We can beat them and we are beating them, even as the absolutely worthless Democrat Party and their buddies on the lunatic left, attempt to stab our troops in the back and to enable radical Islam to live another day.

The terrorists are not impoverished "victims" - they are well-educated, wealthy, gutless cowards who deliberately seek to kill unarmed civilians.

The far left coupled with their media mouthpieces represent Al Qaeda's greatest weapon.

Instead of being frightened of Al Qaeda, we should be celebrating our victories against them and planning for the day when radical Islam is relegated to the ash heap of history.

Posted by daytrader | July 2, 2007 8:51 AM

I failed to see the be-labored point in the previous related thread about the car bomb being not a bomb, only an "incinerating device". Posted by: always right at July 2, 2007 8:31 AM

Son you are so so wrong, the issue is to release the propane with a triggered valve to fill the car totally with a gas cloud and then hit off the ignition charge.

The dummies didn't do it right and it fizzled.

Take a look at this lab test and tell me that it supports your concept. 

Posted by Ann | July 2, 2007 8:58 AM

Two points:

1) Eye witnesses said one guy in the car, who already must have known that his attack had killed no one and had no chance of killing anyone, poured gasoline over himself and the car and lit it up. It seems to me, that this man would have been ineligible for his 70 virgins. It's okay to die while killing the infidel. But self-immolation without actually taking any infidel pigs with you doesn't count.

2) At least one picture in the Daily Mail article yesterday showed the overhang of the Glasgow airport. It showed metal clearly melted and deformed by fire. This of course is impossible without the involvement of the CIA, Dick Cheney, and other right-wing fascists from the US government.

Posted by Tom Shipley | July 2, 2007 8:59 AM

Our media prefers to portray Islamic terrorists as unbeatable masterminds as victims, as heroes, (as far as Michael Moore is concerned).

AND

Instead of being frightened of Al Qaeda, we should be celebrating our victories against them and planning for the day when radical Islam is relegated to the ash heap of history.

OK, so one of the main talking points on the right lately has been the left and the media has been "playing down" recent plots as lackluster efforts. And especially in the Kennedy plot, the left and media were accused of not taking it seriously enough, not highlighting the possible death and destruction this plot could have brought.

In essence, they don't give AQ enough credit and don't take their threat seriously enough.

Now, ND, you're saying the left and the media likes to portray AQ as "masterminds" and are too "frightened" of them?

These theories aren't promoted by people seeing things as they are, but through hate-filled glasses that sku reality to meet their need to demonize the media and the left.

Posted by rob | July 2, 2007 9:01 AM

Why is no one commenting on the fact that an IRANIAN doctor is collaborating with Al Qaeda? (What next, Mossad collaborating with Al Qaeda?) Does Sadr know this? Shouldn' t this be causing concern among the faithful? Or has Britain's famous religious toleration achieved the impossible goal of uniting all Islamic factions?

Posted by always right | July 2, 2007 9:06 AM

DT,
Re-read my message: I failed to see the point of distinguish "car bomb" vs. "only a burning vehicle" as one Mark previously trying to make.

Posted by Rovin | July 2, 2007 9:14 AM

How many politicians speculating that AQ was involved would you prefer in the article?
Posted by: MarkT at July 2, 2007 8:04 AM

Right Mark-----this is certainly an act of disgruntled citizens protesting the new PM and Diana's salute------what our dear friends on the left would consider "civil disobedience" against our evil governments.

When/if similar attacks occur on our soil, would you be more satisfied to call them "domestic disturbances"? I guess ignoring an ideology of "death to the west" just doesn't seem to sink in with the ostrich approach.

Posted by NoDonkey | July 2, 2007 9:17 AM

"you're saying the left and the media likes to portray AQ as "masterminds"

They sure do when it comes to Iraq. The media would have us believe that these simple-minded goat violators cannot possibly be beaten, only appeased.

Our military has beaten these clowns whenever they dare to mass. And if there is a story about it in the local rag, it's in the classified section.

But some gutless coward ignites a car bomb in a market and it's the lead story.

And since when do the left and the media give US/allied efforts any credit as far as diminishing the terrorist threat?

Obama, Edwards, Biden, Reid, Murtha and Pelosi continually tell us we are less safe - even though we've captured or killed Al Qaeda operatives by the bushel. Even though we've disrupted their networks.

Democrats like Dick Durbin call our military as Nazis and Reid called our generals incompetent losers.

Congressional Democrats are not part of the terrorist solution - Congressional Democrats are part of the terrorist problem.

Posted by braindead | July 2, 2007 10:34 AM

It is curious to me that the men are described as "Asian", rather than Moslem.

Posted by MarkT | July 2, 2007 10:34 AM

> Right Mark-----this is certainly an act of disgruntled
> citizens protesting the new PM and Diana's
> salute------what our dear friends on the left would
> consider "civil disobedience"

The Captain mentioned that the CNN article did not quote Gordon Brown's suspicion that al Queda was involved. I pointed out the article DID IN FACT make the al Queda point - they just used a Chertoff quote.

There might not be the great MSM conspiracy involved here that you think. It could be that CNN did not feel the need to print two politician making the same speculation. Get it?

And from this, you leap to a general indictment of the Left.

Posted by Tom Shipley | July 2, 2007 10:46 AM

It is curious to me that the men are described as "Asian", rather than Moslem.

I heard this question asked of a British reporter/government official (forget which) on the TV over the weekend.

I guess in England, Asians are more thought of as Pakistani, Afghani or Indian than Japanese or Chinese.

Posted by Tom Shipley | July 2, 2007 10:53 AM

Plus, despite the fact that yeah, most likely these guys are Muslim, you really can't tell that for sure just by looking at them.

Posted by MarkT | July 2, 2007 11:17 AM

> It is curious to me that the men are described as
> "Asian", rather than Moslem.
> Posted by: braindead at July 2, 2007 10:34 AM

"Asian" is the term used in England for south-Asian people.

Did any of you notice that in one of the earlier linked articles they used the term "supergrass" - which in England means "police informant".

Posted by Cindi | July 2, 2007 12:12 PM

""Asian" is the term used in England for south-Asian people."

Yeah. Right. "Asian" is the term used by THE MEDIA to avoid using "middle Eastern", which would be correctly and forthrightly affording information to the public which they'd prefer to not do.

Someone might connect "middle Eastern" to Islam and we just couldn't have that.

Posted by Captain Ed | July 2, 2007 12:15 PM

"Asian" has been the traditional term used by the British for decades. Many of the people from the "Middle East" in Britain came from Pakistan, which isn't a Middle Eastern nation; it's technically South Asian.

Posted by are all americans so charming | July 2, 2007 12:20 PM

Asian is how we terms people of middle eastern appearnce so it is entirely accurate here.

Ref first comment

I don't know why the British are putting so much effort into this. I mean, obviously the plotters are incompetent and didn't kill anybody. Even if they had, what's a few dozen - or even a few thousand - deaths? Nothing worth worrying about. The Brits would be much better served if they'd spend their time worrying about REAL threats to the planet, like global warming or a lack of free health care for everybody in the world.

/sarcasm

Thanks for the travelling Gore show. They say shit floats downstream. We felt the same concern for you guys on 9/11 obviously. It never entered any of our heads that youd been supporting irish terrorism for a few decades, when you were hit that day and suddenly terrorism might be an issue (ya think?). We kept our collective mouths shut whilst you waded through that one. Still it was great the funding dried up for the IRA after that. Eternally grateful. Freed up our security services after one last swan song with Omagh in 1996, to finally focus on the other threat.

//twat

Posted by DaleinAtlanta | July 2, 2007 1:42 PM

CNN can't help themselves, that's why!

Posted by DaleinAtlanta | July 2, 2007 1:44 PM

CNN can't help themselves, that's why!

Posted by swabjockey05 | July 2, 2007 3:00 PM

Charming Americans,

Relax, old chap. Dr J was being sarcastic...insensitive...but sarcastic. Please don’t take it personally.

Some of us actually APPRECIATE you Brits helping us out with the trouble at hand...Thanks!

Posted by edncda | July 2, 2007 3:26 PM

Re the link showing the effects of a small fuel-air explosion posted by daytrader:
This is proof positive that our capacity for selfdestruction seems to be limitless. Who needs a nuclear or biological weapon when a single disaffected/brainwashed robo-kiddy in any town or city anywhere can do this with pretty much off-the shelf materials.
It sure beats Columbine style events if you really want to be remembered. And for the adults, it will be a real step up from using kids as drug mules in the ghetttos.
But thankfully, in every cloud there's a silver lining; this raises the possibility that global warming may yet become a moot point.
(Btw, I noticed that the Youtube category for the video was perhaps unsurprisingly "Entertainment". Be careful what you wish for kiddies.....)

Posted by docjim505 | July 2, 2007 5:57 PM

Dear are all americans so charming;

I guess that you missed the "/sarcasm" tag at the end of my post, or don't know what it means, or lack the dry wit for which the English are famous. No matter; let me state clearly that I was being SARCASTIC, in effect trying to beat the idiot liberals trolls on this blog to the punch, because "the terrorists are incompetent / they didn't kill anybody / terrorism isn't a big problem" is EXACTLY what they believe. I, of course, take a different view.

Like swabjockey, I greatly appreciate the steadfast friendship that we have had with our British cousins and I'm very happy that the bombers were caught before they could commit really heinous acts of murder.

It will also be of great interest to me to see how John Bull reacts to this. Will he shrug his shoulders and just go on with his life as Downing Street seems to urge him to do? Or will he wake up and realize that Britain faces yet another grave threat to her existence that must be faced, fought, and beaten as was the Armada, the Ogre, Kaiser Bill, Schickelgruber, and the Soviets? Will Britain's rallying cry be "We will never surrender" or "Fighting back was not an option"?

Time will tell.

Posted by lexhamfox | July 2, 2007 6:37 PM

'Going on' and not giving bungled attacks screaming round the clock cover is the best response to terror. It drives terrorists nuts when their attacks don't change policy and don't change public behavior. Londoners are used to these things and it is how they fight back. I rather liked the fact that the new PM spelled out the policy succinctly and did not come up with bunch of window dressing 'feel good' plans or study groups in response to the attacks as Blair would have probably done.

Posted by docjim505 | July 2, 2007 8:41 PM

lexhamfox,

If by "going on" you mean it as the British did during the Blitz - bearing the worst the enemy could dish out with courage and fortitude while at the same time clamoring to "give it 'em back!" - then I agree.

But I fear that many libs on both sides of the pond seem to think that the best course of action is sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that a small but vicious group of psychos wants to kill us, or even trying to excuse their crimes by agonizing over everything western civilization has ever done to piss them off.

The terrorists don't think that the GWOT is a bumber sticker slogan. Further, they're not a group of sophomoric pranksters who simply want attention and will give up their antics when they find that they aren't getting it. They are murderous fanatics who think they're going to get plenty of attention from the 72 virgins they've been promised for murdering infidels. Whether you or any of us like it or not, we've got to take them seriously. I don't espouse people giving way to hysteria as some on the left do about global warming, but we can't afford to be complacent and simply hope that we get lucky and get off the bus before the bomb goes off.

As I said before, what's it to be for Britain? Never surrender, or fighting back is not an option?

Posted by stackja1945 [TypeKey Profile Page] | July 2, 2007 10:00 PM

At http://timblair.net/
An eighth suspect connected to a plot to blow up car bombs in London and Scotland has been arrested in Brisbane, police have confirmed. A 27-year-old Queensland doctor was arrested at Brisbane Airport last night in connection with Britain’s foiled car bomb terror plot, authorities have confirmed.

Posted by lexhamfox | July 3, 2007 6:54 PM

Doc,

WWII was a total war between nations. This is not.

I was thinking of the British response to the provo terrorism of the 70s to the 90s when people refused to change their behavior and the government refused to cave in to terrorist demands. The British also refrained from attacking the millions of Irish within Britain and they also did not attack the United States which is where much of the core support for IRA terrorism came from.

I have not heard anyone seriously suggest that we ignore terrorism or that Islamicism is not one of the great challenges of our time. Again, I felt that the PMs statement hit the right note and I also think he is right in suggesting that we combat this menace with similar tactics to the way we prevailed during the Cold War. Penetrating those terror cells and working with the communities that they try to hide in seems to me the most productive way to respond.