Today's London Bombs are Freaky
Only one reported casualty. Officers in chemical suits. Reports of sour smelling smoke, probably due to "the rucksack catching fire; and the explosives themselves catching fire after the detonator failed to explode them. The explosives could actually burn and give a toxic smell." But how did four bombs not go off right? Or is there more to the story? And (bite my tongue, knock on wood) why hasn't this been happening here? Are the neocons and right-wing sycophants correct when they say the Patriot Act and Gitmo and all that other human-rights-violating behavior is working? Would we even need the Patriot Act if we weren't so imperialistic? All of this has me so confused; please, someone post in the comments something that makes some damn sense. Thank you.
5 Comments:
why the aren't happening here:
I think al Queda is trying to alienate our allies. Bomb them until they withdraw support for the US and its actions over seas. It certainly changed the election is Spain.
They won't bomb here (at least in the short term) because that would create sympathy and would be more apt to unite us with our allies.
And then after they've isolated us, they can begin bringing us to our knees.
Why the bombs weren't more effective: People are stupid and inept. Bombs are tricky--they take a certain amount of talent. Either the bomber is a terrorist (or group of terrorists) or some kind of nut. In either case, their ideology or the ax that they're grinding may be more developed than their skill with explosives.
It's not as if Britain is short on what we would consider rights-violations.
Fock: Very interesting point.
Timprov: I'm not saying they are.
Fock sounds like he relishes the prospect...
Post a Comment
<< Home