Sunday, July 10, 2005

How Sure Can We be that al Qaeda Bombed London?

I was wondering...

Although the smart money is on "al Qaeda"--which, according to some, is such a loose organization that it almost doesn't even count as one--how sure can we be about it? If, say, white supremacists wanted to increase hostility against (certain) non-whites, this might be a good way to do it.

Of course there'll be an investigation, and there's no need to rush to judgment.

Just thinking out loud here.

5 Comments:

Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

"The reason this is a likelihood is that al Qaeda is not a cohesive organization anymore."

Italics mine.

5:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've found the publicly presented evidence that it *is* al-Qaeda, whatever that exactly would mean, to be extremely thin. Juan Cole, for example, notes that the post claiming responsibility makes an approving nod at pan-Arabism, a concept that is at odds with the understood ideological underpinnings of ObL and his gang. The "it does seem to be their M.O." bit is pretty thin, too (London has had its share of bombs being placed in public places on timers).

8:47 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

Wow, WS, when you think out loud, the reverberations are deafening.

So much so that I forgot to mention---remember when you skipped a meeting to "help" the National Security Agency and then promptly got hit by a truck?

Think about it.

8:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, tVD, you seem not to accept the judgement of most intelligence orgs. that Al-Q was once a loose franchise operation with a strong central office, and is now more of an ideology to which random militants pin their mast.

But that's because you're a maroon.

6:31 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Great link Azael--thanks much.

tvd--hey, I wondered why that truck had a "I [heart] Homeland Security" bumper sticker...

6:55 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home