britain | Hanlon's Razor

Blair new Iraq had no WMD prior to invasion, says inquiry

By Hanlon, on November 25th, 2009 at 08:17 PM

Y’know how you read something that you already figured was true, but you just needed to see it in writing? Yeah.

British Bishop: Sharia law “inevitable”

By Hanlon, on February 8th, 2008 at 12:01 AM

Despite what Ann Coulter and others might say, I’m no fan of Islam. So it’s not exactly thrilling news to hear that someone over in Ye Old England saw some benefits to Sharia Law. The really baffling part? It’s the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Archbishop provoked the row by saying Britain had to “face up to the fact” that some citizens did not relate to this country’s legal system and argued that officially sanctioning sharia law would improve community relations.

He said there was an argument that aspects of sharia law, such as those involving divorce, financial transactions and the settling of disputes, could be accommodated with British legislation.

Speaking before a speech on the issue – delivered last night – Dr Williams said: “Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states.

“But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to divorce courts as we understand them.”

I like the whole “be open to all faiths” idea, but if you can’t “identify” with the laws of the land, tough shit. Or, if you want to change the law, explain why the law should be changed in a way that doesn’t cite a holy book. As soon as you even begin to accept “it’s part of their culture” as a reason to adopt their laws, there’s no reason to stop Christian law as well and that’s a slippery slope that’ll give me nightmares.

You don’t integrate. You assimilate. Deal with it.

The Glasgow Attack

By Hanlon, on July 1st, 2007 at 03:39 PM

Attack on the Glasgow airport. I’ve been on the road lately, visiting some family in Camp Lejeune because, y’know, I hate the troops so much. While I was getting ready and getting moving, I missed the story concerning an attempted (or possibly successful, depending on how you look at things) terrorist attack on an airport in Glasgow.

Two men rammed a jeep into the entrance of the main terminal at Glasgow Airport on Saturday, sending a burst of flames into the air and terrifying bystanders. Authorities said the attack was linked to two attempted car bombings Friday in London and raised the national alert to “critical,” the highest level, which means they believe another attack is imminent.

Scary stuff, no? This was an actual attack, though it was a stupid one. So far all we’ve heard here in the US was the “Miami 7″ bullshit or a so-called attempt to blow up the Sears Tower. In this case, the men actually went through with it. The hunt is on, and a fifth arrest was recently made.

British officials intensified the hunt Sunday for what they called an al-Qaida-linked network behind three attempted terrorist attacks, announcing a fifth arrest and conducting pinpoint raids across a country on its highest level of alert.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said “it is clear that we are dealing, in general terms, with people who are associated with al-Qaida.” He warned Britons that the threat would be “long-term and sustained” but said the country would not cowed by the plot targeting central London and Glasgow’s airport.

Now, this seems rather legit. We’ve been looking at terrorism as an “over-there” thing all this while, and the attacks we see tend to feel like large-scale military endeavors. Coordinated efforts to bring down towers and blow-up landmarks. But that isn’t the reality of terrorism that people in Iraq have to deal with.

In Baghdad, people aren’t afraid that 15 men are going to assemble a neutron bomb while riding an airplane and fly it into Parliament. It’s roadside bombs on every corner, suicide bombers running into crowded buildings and buses before detonating their vests. As Prime Minister Brown’s terrorism expert said, they’re importing the tactics they learn in Iraq into the UK, and one can only assume to the US as well.

We’ve never had car bombers in the States, no suicide bombers and churches being set on fire. Yet it seems like that’s what’s coming. So tell me why on earth doesn’t our government seem to care that much? Take Tony Snow’s comments.

There will some inconvenience to passengers in terms of longer wait times — that’s already being reported on some of the networks. Local police also have the option of invoking whatever measures they may deem necessary or appropriate. Again, the most you’re going to see right now is some inconvenience, some increased inconvenience for airline passengers, more likely at large airports than small.

The threat level doesn’t go up, and we’re basically telling them that we won’t be increasing security at small airports so go ahead and attack. Way to take things seriously, Tony Baloney.

Blair out, Brown in.

By Hanlon, on June 24th, 2007 at 03:56 PM

If England gets a new leader, why don’t we? Off to a good start!

Brown acknowledged on Sunday that mistakes had been made with the war in Iraq and said he would learn lessons from the conflict and its aftermath.

Finally, someone’s acknowledging mistakes and they’ll start learning lessons. We need some of that on our end. All we’ve got so far is sort of a sideways acknowledgment that’s immediately followed by firing someone and then plugging along in the same direction.

Brown, however, gave no particular hint he would adopt a different approach, even though Blair’s stance on Iraq arguably hastened his departure from office.

Echoing the outgoing leader’s philosophy in international affairs, he said defeating extremism went further than the sole use of military force.

Well crap. Looks like things ain’t so different.

Iraq wants Iranians released, US wants British sailors released

By Hanlon, on April 3rd, 2007 at 07:52 PM

This is starting to get confusing. In the middle of the British sailor business, I’d forgotten about the Iranians picked up in Iraq a little while ago. Well they’re back in the news, and oddly in the form of Iraq fighting for their release.

The Iraqi Foreign Ministry continues to push for the release of five Iranians detained during a U.S. military raid in January, Iraq’s Deputy Foreign Minister Labid Abawi told CNN on Tuesday.

It was unclear whether the situation of the five Iranians had any connection to negotiations aimed at freeing 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran.

…

But a senior Iraqi foreign ministry official told The Associated Press that Iraqi efforts to obtain the five Iranians’ release “will be a factor that will help in the release of the British sailors and marines.”

Of course, Bush chimed in as well.

“I support the Blair government’s attempts to solve this issue peacefully. So we’re in close consultation with the British government,” he responded. “I also strongly support the prime minister’s declaration that there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages.”

What’s completely confusing me is why we’re asking the the president if the United States releasing Iranians picked up in Iraq will encourage the release of British sailors in Iranian custody, at the request of Iraq. That’s just too many steps for me.

However, I do find it interesting that there appear to be lines drawn in the sand. Iraq is on one side with Iran, Britain and the USA on the other. That’s twice now that Iraq has seemingly sided with Iran, after formally saying that Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program. It makes me wonder: what exactly would happen if the United States invaded Iran?

That seems to be a neglected dimension to the debate, it’s all said under the assumption that Iraq would, if not completely side with the US, just sit it out and not worry about it. I’m not sure that’s the case, myself.

Al Qaeda’s prime target: England?

By Hanlon, on October 18th, 2006 at 09:10 PM

Now I feel kinda left out. While the United States has always been the main target for terrorism, apparently they’ve since moved on and now setting their sights on England. The whole article is rather alarming, so here’s the beginning.

Britain has become the main target for a resurgent al-Qaida, which has successfully regrouped and now presents a greater threat than ever before, according to counter-terrorist officials. They have revised their views about the strength of the network abroad, and the methods terrorists are able to use in the UK.

Intelligence chiefs with access to the most comprehensive and up to date information have told the Guardian that al-Qaida has substantially recovered its organisation in Pakistan, despite a four-year military campaign to seek out and kill its leaders. In that time, the organisation has become much more coherent, with a strong core and a regular supply of volunteers.

So if we’re going to do a little scorekeeping, we’ll find that the Iraq War has increased terrorism worldwide, Al Qaeda is pretty much intact, and they’re not focusing on the United States any more.

Keeping in mind that “they’re too scared” makes little sense given the lack of effect our war had on removing the threat, I’d wager a guess that, if the terrorists really do hate freedom, they just don’t see the point in going after us any more.

UK general: cuttin’ and runnin’

By Hanlon, on October 13th, 2006 at 01:03 AM

Hot on the heels of Bush’s proclamation that our hand is stronger if other people are playing the same cards, the British general decides to fold.

Britain should “get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates security problems,” [Gen. Richard Dannatt, chief of the British Army] told the newspaper in an interview published Thursday.

…

“I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial, successful war-fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning,” he said.

Keeping in mind that Britian is, for all intents and purposes, our only ally in this war, it’s going to be interesting seeing how the administration spins this. “Well, we listen to OUR generals, because THOSE generals don’t know what they’re talkin’ about. Heh heh heh!” And I predict the radio personalities will tell us that they don’t have enough troops to make a difference. And Pace, our general, seems equally blunt.

Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN the overall Iraq strategy was under review, including the linchpin of U.S. exit strategy — relying on Iraqi forces to take up the fight.

And they’re still discussing breaking Iraq into separate nations. Which will prove rather problematic if the autonomous regions ever start “scuffling” amongst themselves. At times like these I wish desperately that all I had to talk about was tax plans and Bush’s verbal gaffes.

Suspects charged in Britain plot

By Hanlon, on August 22nd, 2006 at 05:15 AM

It finally happened. I had previously indicated my skepticism concerning the actual threat about these guys. Well they finally got arrested, and do I feel like we really dodged another 9/11? Not really.

They had found bomb-making equipment, chemicals including hydrogen peroxide, electrical components and documents, [Peter Clarke, head of London police's anti-terrorist branch,] said.

Now truthfully, this sounds scary. But I have electrical stuff in my house, and I have a bottle of hydrogen peroxide. If you want to prove that something is a terrifying threat, you say something dangerous that was found. Nitro glycerine, for example. It doesn’t get much more terrifying, either.

A 17-year-old man was charged with possessing items useful to a terrorist, including a book on home-made bombs, suicide notes, wills “with the identities of persons prepared to commit acts of terrorism” and a map of Afghanistan, prosecutors said.

I’m dubious about these wills, and the only thing that makes me scratch my head more is the fact that they would entrust useful items in the hands of a 17 year old. All of the notes and wills? The book? They all are held by a kid?

With everything that comes out of this, these guys look like Miami 7 style wannabes who probably would have tripped over their own shoelaces on the way to the airport. I’m glad they got arrested, I don’t think anyone who’s actively trying to attack the US should be allowed to go ahead doing it in the off-chance that they DO succeed, but that doesn’t mean I buy at all that this was a real threat.

Of course, Bush’s ratings got a one-shot boost, so it looks like the threat did its job.

[tags]terrorism, britain, plot, airlines[/tags]

They had found bomb-making equipment, chemicals including hydrogen peroxide, electrical components and documents, [Peter Clarke, head of London police's anti-terrorist branch,] said.

A 17-year-old man was charged with possessing items useful to a terrorist, including a book on home-made bombs, suicide notes, wills “with the identities of persons prepared to commit acts of terrorism” and a map of Afghanistan, prosecutors said.

Of course, Bush’s ratings got a one-shot boost, so it looks like the threat did its job.

[tags]terrorism, britain, plot, airlines[/tags]

The non-plot in Britain

By Hanlon, on August 17th, 2006 at 06:00 AM

I’ll make this one brief. Taking a look at a recent judge’s decision that the suspects can be held despite not being charged, and a former UK ambassador’s analysis of the situation, I come to the following realizations about the situation.

- These men had never built a bomb.

- These men has neither airplane tickets nor, in some cases, passports.

- These men were under surveillance for a year by the Brits.

- The only evidence against them was attained by torturing a rather unreliable man out in Pakistan.

- The year-long surveillance on these men yielded no evidence, however.

- The Americans were the ones who pushed to have the men arrested when they were.

- That just happened to be two days after the Connecticut primary.

- As the men are not charged, they will be released in roughly a week unless something groundbreaking crops up. One has already been let go.

- The authorities won’t publicly say anything concerning what the investigation has yielded.

Am I out of line for thinking this “plot” was as much of a danger as the Miami 7, and brought up out of fear over the anti-war wave the Lamont victory was signalling? When the authorities won’t say anything about what the last week of investigations have uncovered, that makes me think they haven’t uncovered very much. Especially since no charges have been filed.

Or maybe I’m crazy.

[tags]terrorism, britain, airplanes[/tags]

Little disagreement about arrests in Britain

By Hanlon, on August 13th, 2006 at 12:22 AM

Augh. If anyone’s wondering about the odd timing of when the suspects were arrested, I’d suggest you take a look at this.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner.

We already knew that they didn’t buy the plane tickets, but were in the “process of perusing” for flights. Now it seems some of them didn’t even have passports, so they couldn’t have hit us soon even if they wanted to. The best they had was the ability to do a dry run. Lovely.

Naturally, the White House is denying this. One official says it’s crap, while another does acknowledge that America is “edgier” than the Brits when it comes to these things. So edgy Bush is having a GOP barbecue. And screw you Crooks & Liars for bringing this to my attention.

[tags]britain, america, terrorism, airplane, bomb[/tags]