Police have confirmed they are now investigating the discovery of two car bombs in the West End of London.
Police said the second device had been found in a Mercedes hours after the car was given a parking ticket in Cockspur Street and towed to Park Lane.
Another Mercedes, with a bomb made up of 60 litres of petrol, gas cylinders and nails, had been found outside a nightclub in Haymarket at 0130 BST.
Both bombs were similar, potentially viable and clearly linked, police said.
Police sources said it would have caused “carnage” if it had exploded.
“International elements” were believed to have been involved with the bombs, Whitehall sources told the BBC.
The ever-breathless Blotter sez it wuz teh Islamofascists fer sure:
British police have a “crystal clear” picture of the man who drove the bomb-rigged silver Mercedes outside a London nightclub, and officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com he bears “a close resemblance” to a man arrested by police in connection with another bomb plot but released for lack of evidence.
U.S. and British law enforcement officials tell ABC News it is increasingly clear Friday’s bomb plot in London involves multliple vehicles, and is described by a senior official as a “terror plot involving lslamic extremists.”
The car contained five or six propane and butane gas cylinders as well as 33 gallons of gasoline, all rigged to detonate with calls to two cell phones. Officials say the cell phones failed to initiate the explosions, even after each phone had been called twice.
But what would have happened if the dastardly plot had succeeded? Chaos! Devastation! 9/11 times a thousand!
The “patio gas” bomb defused in Haymarket would have generated a fireball the size of a house and a shock wave spreading out over a diameter of at least 400 yards, explosives experts said today.
The propane cylinders and petrol used in the device would have triggered a huge conflagration, as well as causing shrapnel and blast injuries from the exploding car chassis and the nails packed around the bomb, according to Hans Michels, Professor of Safety Engineering at Imperial College, London.
Just one 13kg propane canister — the type sold by Calor under the brand name “Patio Gas” — would release a highly flammable cloud of vapour that would spread over an area of 50 to 60 cubic metres before igniting into a still larger fireball, he said.
“The vapour cloud from one cylinder would fill the order of a big room, and when it ignited the effect would be even bigger,” Professor Michels said. “In addition to the power of the explosion and the shrapnel, you would get a fireball the size of a small house.”
Professor Michels said: “It is almost certain that the explosive device itself would have been sufficiently powerful not to just fragment the gas cylinders, but to destroy the car and possibly the front of buildings, with missiles, shrapnel, nails and burning petrol flung at very high velocity in the wake of the shock wave and the whole surrounded by a massive fireball resulting from the instantly evaporated and exploded propane and/or butane.
Or would it? Scoffing at the media ‘hyperventilation’ in the wake of this latest near-incident, former CIA operative Larry Johnson dismisses the official spin:
You know what you call a vehicle with 50 gallons of gas? A Cadillac Escalade. The media meltdown over this incident is simply shameful.
For starters, gasoline is not a high explosive. If we were talking 50 pounds of Semtex or the Al Qaeda standby, TATP, I would be impressed. Those are real high explosives with a detonation rate in excess of 20,000 feet per second. Gasoline can explode (just ask former owners of a Ford Pinto) but it is first and foremost an incendiary. If the initial reports are true, the clown driving the Mercedes was a rank amateur when it comes to constructing an Improvised Explosive Device aka IED. Unlike a Hollywood flick the 50 gallons of gas would not have shredded the Mercedes into lethal chunks of flying shrapenal.
The fact that “officers courageously disabled the trigger by hand” coupled with the report of the smoke in the car leads me to believe that the mad London “bomber” tried to construct a Molotov cocktail of sorts and lit a cloth fuze. Fortunately he left the windows in the car up and there was not enough oxygen to really get the fire going. Looks like the brave British police reached in and snuffed the flame.
Brit Scot Cernig also thinks the technical expertise of the perpetrator(s)–and the supposed experts convinced a successful detonation would have caused mass destruction–leaves much to be desired:
…[T]he use of gasoline and propane point to an attempt at a fuel-air explosion – but if so the presence of nails shows the folks responsible don’t really get the dynamics of such explosions. As expert David Hambling points out, either the fuel-air explosion works or the nail-bomb element works – not both. That indicates they’re amateurs with knowledge gleaned second-hand rather than trained experts who understand the physics of explosives.
And David, not being a Brit insurance underwriter, may have missed one important fact. UK propane and other gas canisters don’t explode in all directions. They’re manufactured with a deliberate weakness in the base so that any explosion is channelled as the base gives way. The canister will shoot out like an underpowered rocket, but the explosive force of the detonation is far smaller and more directional (backwards) than if the whole canister failed all at once. That’s why the famous “Gas limos” scheme wasn’t quite all it was hyped to be.
The London Times has found an expert willing to deny logic and causation to make the bombs seem scarier. He says the explosion would have ” generated a fireball the size of a house and a shock wave spreading out over a diameter of at least 400 yards”. However, it’s clear from his explanation that for this to be true, the cloud of gas from the propane cylinders would have to expand to its fullest possible extent before igniting – something that would be impossible in the presence of burning petroleum – and that the original explosive charge would have to be big enough to fragment, not just pierce, the gas cylinders. Given the lack of evidence of such a large conventional explosive charge so far, he’s pushing the boundaries of possibility to their maximum.
More evidence that there’s no aptitude test required to become a (wannabe) violent extremist or a media-cited ‘expert’.
Update 07/01: ZOMG CAR BOMB IN GLASGOW!!11
UK counterterrorism officials make a wild leap of faith, saying this latest (inept) incident is likely connected to Friday’s attempted London car bombings (also hindered by extreme ineptitude).
How, if at all, can the US discharge its obligations not only to the people of Iraq but to our own soldiers as well?
For the war’s supporters, confident that that the “surge” is working, the answer is clear: fight on, winning the victory that Iraqis and the troops both deserve.
For those opposing the war, it’s not so easy. However much they may want out of Iraq, few are willing simply to disregard the moral quagmire into which the nation has waded. Leaving Iraqis in the lurch certainly qualifies as problematic. Yet for those who see the war as wrong or ill-advised or merely lost, continuing to send American soldiers to fight and die in such a cause is equally untenable.
A morally acceptable approach to closing down the war will resolve this conundrum, ending the conflict in a way that keeps faith with ordinary Iraqis and with our own troops. In short, the war’s opponents must align their moral concerns, which are complex, with their seemingly straightforward policy prescription.
That alignment becomes possible if we recognize that America’s obligation is not to Iraq but to Iraqis. As a nation-state, Iraq – awash with sectarian violence and lacking legitimate institutions – can hardly be said to exist. We owe Iraq nothing.
In contrast, we owe the Iraqis whose lives we have blighted quite a lot. We should repay that debt much as we (partially at least) repaid our debt to the people of South Vietnam after 1975: by offering them sanctuary. In the decade after the fall of Saigon, some half-million Vietnamese refugees settled in the United States. Here, they found what they were unable to find in their own country: safety, liberty, and the opportunity for a decent life. It was the least we could do.
The least we can do for Iraqis today is to extend a similar invitation.
Related: Spiegel International on Iraqi refugees in Sweden, one of the only Western nations that has stepped up and done the right thing by allowing nearly 10,000 Iraqi refugees to settle within its borders post-invasion.
The other day I posted on how US military officials in Iraq were (once again) musing about the possibility of future US troop reductions – if Iraqi forces can maintain local security without an American presence.
Several senior American officers have warned in recent days that Iraqi soldiers and police are still incapable of maintaining security on their own in the most crucial areas, including Baghdad and the recently reclaimed districts around Baqouba to the north.
Iraqi forces may be able to handle security in the Kurdish north and parts of the Shiite south. But that would face huge challenges in Baghdad and surrounding provinces where Sunni insurgents are deeply entrenched. The Americans then would face the dilemma of maintaining substantial forces in Iraq for years _ perhaps a politically untenable option _ or risk the turmoil spreading to other parts of the Middle East.
“The challenge now is: How do you hold onto the terrain you’ve cleared?” said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, the operations chief of the current offensive in Baqouba, where Sunni insurgents have taken root in recent months. He said this week that U.S. forces have control of much of Baqouba.
“You have to do that shoulder-to-shoulder with Iraqi security forces. And they’re not quite up to the job yet,” Bednarek said.
“A lesson learned is … do not draw down too quickly when we think there’s a glimmer of success,” Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, a former battalion commander in Diyala, told reporters this week.
Pittard, who heads the day-to-day effort to train Iraqi security forces, estimated that it will take “a couple of years” before the Iraqis are ready to take full control of their own security.
Apparently the leader of Ontario’s Opposition has rejected Chief Fontaine’s invitation to join frustrated First Nations peoples in solidarity. In a speech today at a meeting of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, purportedly ‘moderate‘ Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory showed his true Blue roots. Alluding to the potential of violence and blockades at National Day of Action protests this upcoming Friday, Tory crassly pandered to the law and order vote while exploiting post-Caledonia anti-First Nations sentiment (again).
Nice to see some things haven’t changed after the revolution.
- Peter Kulchysky on the tarnished history of land claims negotiations in Canada
- Contemporary timeline (as of November 2006) of the Caledonia land claim dispute from CBC News, which also has a backgrounder on the history of the land in question.
- What you can do to support the National Day of Action
Mandolin astutely captures the essence of anti-choice blog comments.
Also check out a longer piece by the talented Ms Swirsky, Dispersed by the Sun, Melting in the Wind, one of the most elegantly disturbing SF short stories I’ve had the privilege of reading in the past several years.
In a radio interview last fall, Cheney said, “We don’t torture.” What he did not acknowledge, according to Alberto J. Mora, who served then as the Bush-appointed Navy general counsel, was that the new legal framework was designed specifically to leave room for cruelty. In international law, Mora said, cruelty is defined as “the imposition of severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” He added: “Torture is an extreme version of cruelty.”
How extreme? Yoo was summoned again to the White House in the early spring of 2002. This time the question was urgent. The CIA had captured Abu Zubaida, then believed to be a top al-Qaeda operative, on March 28, 2002. Case officers wanted to know “what the legal limits of interrogation are,” Yoo said.
This previously unreported meeting sheds light on the origins of one of the Bush administration’s most controversial claims. The Justice Department delivered a classified opinion on Aug. 1, 2002, stating that the U.S. law against torture “prohibits only the worst forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” and therefore permits many others. [Read the opinion] Distributed under the signature of Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, the opinion also narrowed the definition of “torture” to mean only suffering “equivalent in intensity” to the pain of “organ failure ….. or even death.”
When news accounts unearthed that opinion nearly two years later, the White House repudiated its contents. Some officials described it as hypothetical, without disclosing that the opinion was written in response to specific questions from the CIA. Administration officials attributed authorship to Yoo, a Berkeley law professor who had come to serve in the Office of Legal Counsel.
But the “torture memo,” as it became widely known, was not Yoo’s work alone. In an interview, Yoo said that Addington, as well as Gonzales and deputy White House counsel Timothy E. Flanigan, contributed to the analysis.
The vice president’s lawyer advocated what was considered the memo’s most radical claim: that the president may authorize any interrogation method, even if it crosses the line of torture. U.S. and treaty laws forbidding any person to “commit torture,” that passage stated, “do not apply” to the commander in chief, because Congress “may no more regulate the President’s ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield.”
That same day, Aug. 1, 2002, Yoo signed off on a second secret opinion, the contents of which have never been made public. According to a source with direct knowledge, that opinion approved as lawful a long list of specific interrogation techniques proposed by the CIA — including waterboarding, a form of near-drowning that the U.S. government classified as a war crime in 1947. The opinion drew the line against one request: threatening to bury a prisoner alive.
Comforting to know that even John Yoo has (arbitrary) limits. Hey, “simulated” drowning is one thing. Threatening to bury someone alive? That’s going too goddamn far, man.
(updates below the fold)
Via Hossein Derakhshan, an upcoming rally in New York calling for the release of imprisoned Iranian-American reform advocates and activists Haleh Esfandiari, Kian Tajbakhsh, Parnaz Azima and Ali Shakeri will feature a speech by controversial Iraqi exile Zainab Al-Suwaij. Al-Suwaij is the founder and Executive Director of the American Islamic Congress, which is co-sponsoring the event along with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Hossein provides some background on Al-Suwaij (who campaigned for and supported the US-led toppling of Saddam Hussein’s Baath regime in 2003), and this 2006 post by Lenin goes into further detail on the AIC. In short, she, along with her colleagues, are the usual Neocon suspects (in ‘moderate’ Muslim drag).
Or, as Lenin puts it:
“Essentially it’s a coalition of the pitifully purblind with the obviously charlatan, one that provides an alibi for US aggression under the rubric of an American-as-apple-pie campaign for individual liberties. At best saps, at worst ruthless apologists for imperialism: you’d really have to be retaining water in the head to take these people seriously when they talk about freedom for Iran or anyone else.”
Like Hossein, I too am curious why traditionally non-partisan groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch would align with such a suspect outfit. But it’s quite clear to me why the AIC would want to establish a visible working relationship with AI and HRW. As Hossein and Lenin point out, some see the AIC as being joined at the hip to the imperialists in Washington. By joining with organizations like AI and HRW that did not back the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, the AIC can refresh its tarnished pro regime change image (via AI/HRW’s unspoken endorsement). This will allow the AIC to participate as an ‘honest broker’ in the ongoing dialogue on Iran, mitigating the stigma of its dubious history with regards to the war in Iraq.
As such, AI and HRW should pay heed to the company with which they keep. Bringing groups like the AIC on board only promises to overshadow and unnecessarily politicize important events like this rally. The imprisoned pro-reformers need a focused, independent campaign to direct attention to their plight if they are to be released by the Iranian government. The AIC and its ilk are almost certain to selfishly misappropriate these and other human rights violations on the part of Iran, furthering the pro-regime change line. It will also, thanks to its ideological connection to the hawks and Neocons in the Bush admin, continue to give the impression that Western NGOs have a compromised relationship with the US government, providing (admittedly dubious) justification for more crackdowns on freedom by an Iranian government fearful of a US-backed ‘velvet revolution’.
Whether the participation of the AIC in this event signifies a general ratcheting up of anti-Iran rhetoric on the part of the pro-regime change faction in the US (including the Vice-President’s office) remains to be seen, although expect to see a lot more of this sort of context-free hyperventilation from the US right blogosphere in the coming weeks. If Iran continues to be singled out for egregious human rights violations–and for its alleged role in the ongoing Iraq insurgency–don’t be surprised if, come September, a new imperial product is officially launched (so to speak).
Update: related – Brad Plumer has more on how the US government’s hapless attempt at supporting democratic reform in Iran has backfired.
We’ve gotten so caught up in the horse-race aspect of campaigning that we forget that politicians also have a responsibility to educate people. To say ahead of time that you have to indulge prejudices or ignorance in the electorate in order to win not only shows a lack of confidence in the idea that minds can change over time, it’s also an abdication of a true leader’s responsibility. If the people will only elect a candidate who endorses wrong-headed positions, a true leader has to show them why they’re wrong and make them change their vote. That’s why we call them leaders. A politician who panders is not a leader. He’s a follower.
That’s what I hate most about American politics. Take a guy like John Kerry. He’s sat in high-level committee meetings for 20 years or whatever, met world leaders, been briefed by intelligence operatives, etc. He knows all this stuff, yet during the course of the campaign he didn’t tell us one goddamn thing we didn’t know already. He put his hands over his heart and talked about how weepy he gets when he sees the flag. What a crock of shit. At least Bill Clinton – who I’m not always a fan of, by the way – at least Clinton in his speech at the Kerry convention went out of his way to explain to voters how racking up debt to China and Saudia Arabia affected national policy. He used his position to teach us something. But in general… we’re supposed to look up to these guys, but all they do is try to jack us off.