When we get carried away

Schoolboy guilty of terrorism offences:

A schoolboy who ran away from home to become a Muslim martyr and three students who recruited him are facing jail after a jury found them guilty of terrorism offences.

Mohammed Irfan Raja was supposed to be on his way to school in Essex when he ran away to join a group of radicalised students in Bradford.

During raids on their homes officers found material on their computers which included al-Qa'eda manuals, speeches by Osama bin Laden and justifications for suicide bombings.

The defendants, who had spent much of the trial laughing and giggling together, looked shocked as the verdicts were announced.

So now we're going to start putting away rebellious kids, under the terrorism act. A 17 year old is going to go to jail for adopting 'jihadi' rhetoric and running away from home. And for downloading stuff from the Internet, and "glorifying terrorism". Look at this goofy teenager. He looks about as sharp as a box of rocks. That could easily have been me at 17. Luckily for me, I didn't choose to rebel in the same way as him. I stuck to music my parents didn't like, and staying out past curfew. I exploded all my little 'bombs' harmlessly, in empty fields.

We're scared as hell and we're not going to take it anymore, I guess. We should probably start jailing little hoodlums for repeating gangsta rap stanzas about guns and 'hos', too. And now that I think about it, those kids in hoodies -- stick them in jail too. They look very suspicious if you ask me.

Back when I lived in Springfield

Andy Simpson.

Yeah, I know, shameless movie promotion. Still, cool!
Simpsonize me.

I read the news today, oh boy

Someone tossed a "newspaper" into my garden today. The Sun. The two "headlines" I saw on the blowing pages littered around my home were:

FLY FLAG ON EVERY BUILDING

and

EXECUTE THE TERROR FIENDS

I mean, I guess I always knew the Sun was a lowbrow, xenophobic, fascist tabloid rag, crossed with a skin mag and a TV guide, but I've never had to actually look at it before. And it's one of the highest-circulation papers in the UK, as I understand it. This is what the "working class" people read every day? Lordy.

I can't even get excited

Maybe it's because I'm tired tonight. Maybe it's because I'm surprised they weren't doing it already. Here it is:

Police are to be given live access to London's congestion charge cameras - allowing them to track all vehicles entering and leaving the zone. Anti-terror officers will be exempted from parts of the Data Protection Act to allow them to see the date, time and location of vehicles in real time. They previously had to apply for access on a case-by-case basis.

Or maybe it's because, finally, I've given up on the concept of privacy in Britain. I'm sure I'll continue to highlight it here, but I may have reached the point of resignation. That's a tough pill to swallow for a North American, with our disinclination to automatically trust "authorities". I drive through the congestion zone every day. This affects me. Being tracked in real time by the police -- when I'm not a suspect in any crime -- strikes me as so fundamentally wrong as to be on the level of a human rights violation. But that's Britain today. I guess you like it or you leave.

But they will only be able to use the data for national security purposes and not to fight ordinary crime, the Home Office stressed.

Yes, I trust them on that score, because it's so believable. Obvious prediction: In a year or two, the system will be hailed as a great success in stopping terrorism, and the government will be pushing a 'scheme' to have the cameras used fight "ordinary crime". Probably, some heinous crime will be paraded about as an example of something that wouldn't have happened if the police had had more access. Then the public will nod, and it will be done.

Meanwhile, the sensible people of New York City are in the process of rejecting congestion charge cameras.

Countdown to disaster

According to this piece in the Guardian, the Cheney/Bush white house is planning to attack Iran militarily, with Cheney (as always) playing the role of warmonger in chief:

"The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively.

Well, isn't that good news for civilization? Dick Cheney still has the clout to start another war, and apparently has the good judgement to decide what kind of situation the next president should face.

Since common sense dictates that America cannot accomplish some kind of ground invasion/occupation of Iran (a la Iraq), then the options would appear to be a) aerial bombardment with conventional weapons; and b) nuclear attack. Previously I've asked the rhetorical question:

What makes Mr. Lieberman think that Iran -- militant, confrontational Iran -- will respond to a military attack by cowering? By surrendering and backing down?

What makes Dick Cheney think he has the option of "deal[ing] with Iran decisively", short of the nuclear option 'b'? That question scares me, because I don't imagine for one minute that some kind of conventional bombing campaign will defeat Iran, case closed.

Here's a nice nightmare scenario: What if, in response, Iran were to invade Iraq? They've got ~160,000 American soldiers hostage in Iraq, who already have their hands full just dealing with the locals. How big a disaster would it be? How would America hope to repel Iran's half-million-strong army under the circumstances? What would Cheney and Bush do then? Maybe it's a failure of imagination on my part, but I can think of only one answer: Option 'b'. In that case, ladies and gents, we're all screwed.

And throw away the key

I was going to write an entry about this:

One of Britain's most senior police officers has demanded a return to a form of internment, with the power to lock up terror suspects indefinitely without charge.

But my friend over at Jen's Den of Iniquity has done an admirable job of beating me to it.

Ho hum, another day, another odious assault on democracy and freedom. This is becoming a way of life in Britain. I don't have too much more to add, except to point out that under the UK's Terrorism Act 2006, even "condoning or glorifying terrorism" is an offence. For that, they'd like to be able to lock people up indefinitely without charge.

Not only is there no guarantee of free speech in this country (indeed, various types of speech are illegal), but apparently there won't be the guarantee of a trial either.

Paranoia, paranoia, la la la.

And there you have it

Ask a stupid question...

The politicians now have to DO SOMETHING! What clever thing will they (our intrepid leaders, not the terrorists) think of next? A crackdown on nails and gas canisters? On parking? On Mercedes sedans? (along with a new tax security charge, undoubtedly?)

...and here's the stupid answer:

Background security checks on foreign doctors and other health workers migrating to Britain are to be stepped up after the weekend bomb scares in London and Glasgow.

(throws hands in air, slumps in chair).

Take that Osama

Following on from my last post, in which I described how Canada is being seriously underserved by the international terrorist community:

I've come to the hypothesis that Osama has unfairly bought into the "mostly harmless" stereotype of Canadians. And goodness knows, even in Afghanistan, he still hasn't seen a Canadian with a gun [Canadians with guns are still not as mean as Canadians with Hockey sticks though].

We need to send him a message. Change our image. Here are some ideas:

• Put some big, visible guns on the CN Tower.
• Stop killing seals with clubs, and start using machine guns or bombs instead. Or behead them (It's probably quicker and more humane anyway). Actually, I don't think the Qur'an has any bad things to say about seals, so Osama probably already thinks we're just being cruel.
• Do a better job of publicising just how tough beavers actually are. I've heard about one trying to pick a fight with a bulldozer. No kidding.
  
• Put some knuckles on either side of the CN Tower, so that it becomes the world's largest free-standing middle finger.

I know I keep coming back to the CN Tower but it seems like the best tool in our arsenal.

Wallowing in the fear

Of the many overhyped, fear-mongering terrorism headlines I've seen in the past few days -- though not strictly related to the London "car bombs" -- this one takes the cake. Ready?!:

Dirty bombs missing in Canada
Numerous have been lost or stolen since 9-11

That's right folks, Canada is positively awash in missing dirty bombs!:

At least 76 radioactive devices - several of which could be used in a terrorist attack - have gone missing in Canada over the last five years, newly compiled figures show.

Now wait just a cotton-pickin'. "Radioactive devices" doesn't sound quite like a dirty bomb. They couldn't be trying to stir us up with that breathless headline, could they? What are these dirty bombs?

Turns out, they're pretty much anything that's radioactive. You have to keep reading for quite a while before you get good idea of the actual, less-than-sensational devices in question: "nuclear gauges", "radioactive tools" (used in oil and gas discovery), "nuclear medicine markers", and a "vial of sodium iodide":

the Canadian Security Intelligence Service said it's "quite surprising" terrorists have not already set off a crude radioactive bomb.

"We are positively overdue" for such an attack, CSIS said.

Nothing much exciting happens in Canada. Sometimes I think we Canadians feel a little left out of this whole war on terror thing. Subconsciously, it seems we're gagging for some big news to call our own -- after 9/11 I had friends who were convinced Calgary or Edmonton was the next big terrorist target, you know, 'cause there's oil there. Why don't the terrorists pay us any attention?! We're totally a real country!! Look, we have the CN Tower ("Canada's wonder of the world!" -- see photo); it would make a great target! Of course, we did have those teenage terror masterminds with the frighteningly plausible plan to cut off the Prime Minister's head and blow up the CN Tower, but those hosers didn't even get a chance to try anything, eh? To be fair, though, Australia has totally done more to deserve their own terror attack, but they're still waiting.

JIM BRONSKILL AND SUE BAILEY, stand up and collect your razzie for irresponsible journalism.

Al Qaeda sure makes crappy bombs

Apparently my skepticism of last week's attempted car bombings has some justification. The Reg has a pair of smackdowns (they're good for that sort of thing):

Beavis and Butthead in London jihad. Good quote:

Today we have news from London, where a "big [explosive] device" was discovered inside a parked car near Piccadilly Circus. The device consisted of petrol, propane gas cylinders, and nails. The car containing it had been abandoned after its driver was observed piloting it erratically, crashing it, then running off, like a true professional.

And another:

"It is obvious that if the device had detonated there could have been serious injury or loss of life", Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke intoned gravely.

Ah, if it had detonated. Yes, it could have been a real horror. Only, the device could not have detonated. Not under any circumstances. You see, the terrorist wannabe clown who built it left out a crucial element: an oxidiser. The device was pure pre-teen boy fantasy.

"We'll heat up these propane cylinders with burning petrol, and they'll go off like bombs", boys the world over have remarked with glee. They don't realise that air is a poor oxidiser, and the only "explosion" they will get is when gas pressure inside the cylinders is great enough to burst them. Then the propane will ignite, and a nice fireball will blossom. A fireball, not an explosion.

Here's the other razzie (from a former bomb squaddie no less): 'al-Qaeda' puts on big shoes, red nose, takes custard pie. Good quote:

If these guys at the weekend really were anything to do with al-Qaeda, all one can really say is that it looks as though the War on Terror is won. This whole hoo-ha kicked off, remember, with 9/11: an extremely effective attack. Then we had the Bali and Madrid bombings, not by any measure as shocking and bloody but still nasty stuff. Then we had London 7/7, a further significant drop in bodycount but still competently planned and executed (Not too many groups would have been able to mix up that much peroxide-based explosive first try without an own goal).

Now we have this; one terror-clown badly burnt and nobody else hurt at all.

So if these guys are obviously amateur 'terror-clowns', why are the police and politicians trying to spook us again with talk of Al Qaeda and international terrorism?

Another bogus terror plot? This is getting ridiculous -- add it to the long, long list. Ask yourself: Do the British police and government have any credibility left, at all?

2008 Hayabusa!

There's been lots of speculation, and CGI and drawings passed off as the real scoop, but this time I believe I've finally seen the new Hayabusa. RaptorsAndRockets.com says:

Dealers in the US have just been shown most of the 2008 range. This is the all new 2008 Suzuki Hayabusa. 1340cc, more than 190bhp enabled by Twin Swirl Combustion Chambers (11% increase in power), new chassis, new swingarm, new more muscular fairing, new 4-2-1-2 exhaust, engine mapping choice like K7 GSX-R1000, new brakes and a whole lot more!

And here are the photos:

Yes, I can get on this bandwagon.

They've kept the general look I adore (though I don't prefer it to the old look) and they've upgraded the specs. However this exhaust can will have to go, and mine will not be orange.

Close the barn door (them horses done ran away)

Seems we in Britain are on high terror alert after this week's failed car-bombing attempts.

Can I just say, how much more impressed I'd be if they'd alerted us before the events?

Are we on alert because the government knows there are more attacks coming? Can I be excused for being skeptical about that? With all their eavesdropping and surveillance, why didn't they warn us in advance? These attempted bombers were clearly amateurs. Of course we're being told it's the work of the usual bogeymen (Al Qaida) but colour me unconvinced; Al Qaida's bombs don't usually fail to explode, do they? And another thing: terrorists don't usually attack us when we're expecting it -- for example on obvious symbolic anniversaries, or holidays, or when we're on high terror alert. They usually wait until we're not expecting it. When we're nice and relaxed. They're clever that way. So what's the point, really?

Now, this isn't just macho talk. I am afraid of terror attacks. But not for the obvious reason. They worry me because of high terror alerts, hair-trigger police, and itchy politicians. The most dangerous thing to be in Britain right now is the proverbial innocent bystander. Terror attacks worry me because I wonder about how the government is going to punish the rest of us.

The politicians now have to DO SOMETHING! What clever thing will they (our intrepid leaders, not the terrorists) think of next? A crackdown on nails and gas canisters? On parking? On Mercedes sedans? (along with a new tax security charge, undoubtedly?)

I'm not being totally facetious. We're still carrying our lipstick and toothpaste in clear plastic bags when we board airplanes, aren't we? Because of a bogus plot.

You can't beat terrorism with oppressive laws and security restrictions (not to mention with fighter jets, M16s, or daisy-cutter bombs). Terrorism isn't a group of people, or a religion, or even an ideology; it's a tactic. The object is to make us afraid, and to make us change our behaviour. So is it working? Every time we react badly, we show our enemies that it is.

Wave of rumination

British Press Fears Wave Of Terrorism!

Alternative view:

British Press Looks Forward To Lots Of Big Headlines About Fears Of Terrorism!

If you've spent much time with the British press, you'll know how often we are regaled with headlines about FEARS and STORMS (controversies) and PANICS and those sorts of things. Sells lots of newspapers I guess. Last year the newspapers were all in a tizzy about an alleged wave of youth knife violence, for a couple of weeks. Every mugging became front page news. Then it was quickly forgotten in the wake of some celebrity news or something -- but not before the politicians could respond with some draconian new knife laws (they had to DO SOMETHING!).

Cynical? Moi?