Plot to attack London foiled? Updated! Again!

Posted by: Phineas on September 28, 2010 at 5:53 pm

It looks like the brave, brave jihadis were planning to do to London and other UK cities what they did to Mumbai:

Intelligence agencies have intercepted a terror plot to launch Mumbai-style attacks on Britain and other European countries, according to Sky News sources.

Sky’s foreign affairs editor Tim Marshall said militants based in Pakistan had been planning simultaneous strikes on London and major cities in France and Germany.

He said the plan was in the “advanced but not imminent stage” and the plotters had been tracked by spy agencies “for some time”.

Intelligence sources told Sky the planned attacks would have been similar to the commando-style raids carried out in Mumbai.

Then, Pakistan-based Islamist group Lashkar-e-Taiba killed 166 people in a series of gun and grenade attacks in the Indian city.

This is jihad fi sabil Allah, “war for the sake of Allah.” These guys want to get to their twisted version of Paradise over our corpses.

They’re still trying to kill us.

via The Jawa Report

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

UPDATE: via Hot Air. Now we see the reason for the sudden rapid-fire round of drone strikes in Pakistan.

UPDATE II: Threat Matrix speculates about which jihadist groups might have been involved. Not surprisingly, Pakistani groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba are in the mix. But also mentioned is AQIM, which is raking in the big bucks via kidnapping for ransom. What was it I wrote about victims financing their own destruction? Oh, yeah

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Tel-Chai Nation trackbacked with Terror attack foiled in London?...
  • 10 Responses to “Plot to attack London foiled? Updated! Again!”

    Comments

    1. Carlos says:

      What no one is saying is where the financing for these strikes was to come from.

      Afghanistan poppy fields? Saudi oil? Laundered money through mosques in the United States?

      Enquiring minds want to know, Mr. Obambi.

    2. Jo says:

      I wouldn’t ask him, Carlos. National security is just a nuisance on his agenda to Socialize the nation. Besides, he is too busy cozying up to Muslim nations, ordering NASA to build up their rich heritage and defending the Ground Zero Mosque to pay attention to international terror threats from the ‘peaceful religion’ factions. But, hey, if they hit us, invoking Marshall Law right before the elections sure would be a gift form Allah, wouldn’t it????

    3. Wayne says:

      What I don’t understand is that when the government says “the stimulus averted an even worse depression” we’re all skeptical. When they say we blew up 20 people to prevent a bombing in Germany, no one flinches or asks for more proof.

      The same people who want to audit the fed, are totally fine with “national security” being the reason they don’t hear the details of why this guy needed to be killed.

      We can’t continue strikes that kill others and expect them to stop attacking us at the same time. Kinda misguided wouldn’t you say? We need a stronger commitment to non-aggression and actual defense not preemptive strikes and targeted killing for our “defense.”

    4. Carlos says:

      Gosh, I don’t know, Wayne. It kinda sounds to me like you’re one of those Neville Chamberlain-types that believed Hitler wouldn’t have invaded Poland if it hadn’t been in the way in the first place.

      Get this: the twin towers were attacked 8 years before they were attacked again, and our response to that had nothing to do with the fact they were attacked to begin with.

      If you think about it, it’s really kinda simple.

      The “religion of peace” is going to attack our country whenever it feels it can, and no amount of kow-towing to them will prevent any such attack. The premise of their attacks isn’t that we have exploited them and done them wrong for centuries, that’s simply an excuse some people will accept.

      The premise of their attacks is that we’re not marxist muslims, and until we are they will be at war with us.

      And it’s as simple as that.

    5. Wayne says:

      @Carlos: I believe in defending national borders. Were a country to invade another country (Hitler&Poland, Sadam&Kuait) I’d stand up for our defense of the occupied country. You are dead wrong about me and Chamberlian-type appeasement.

      If you carefully read my post I’m suggesting we demand evidence when our government decides to execute someone, without a trial. You’re right it is that simple.

      Fascism starts by galvanizing the populace against a particular enemy group, whereby the government can grab more power to “defend the citizens” in increasingly totalitarian ways. The population grows to accept government atrocities, and secrecy as long as they are against the enemy and for our protection. Eventually that malice turns inward and with no restraints in place, the people become slaves to a government who can kill whomever they want as long as they first label them enemies of the state.

    6. I’m glad this was caught early enough. From what I know about Britain, they seems to have cameras in every corner of every major city. While it’s definitely an invasion of privacy, at least no one had to lose their life this time.

    7. Kate says:

      What privacy do you expect on a public boulevard Report Writer?

      I would say if I dropped a bomb in a trash receptacle on a public street I have waived my right to privacy.

    8. Carlos says:

      Wayne, I agree with your response, kind of and to a point.

      First, if our country is targeting a particular terrorist, how did they get the information to target that person? If the source of that information would be jeopardized, then why would one want that person’s life put in further danger by making it public? If the answer is to have a judge review the case in private, then there can be two other outcomes, too, one being that the judge blabs the info to someone else who publishes it, or that the judge is in the pocket of that particular administration (wouldn’t matter which, just that the judge is a rubber stamp).

      I don’t find either of those particularly palatable.

      And “Fascism starts by galvanizing the populace against a particular enemy group…” is interesting. Every country at war in history has galvanized its citizenry against “the enemy” as a matter of getting support for that war, and yes, the United States has done so effectively.

      Yet I haven’t seen serious leaps toward fascism in this country until quite recently, and the only demonizing and war talk then has been against the evil, radical and dangerous conservatives.

      The “fascism” argument is a red herring, completely off subject and has little to do with any reality.

    9. Tango says:

      (overheard in a remote Pakistan spider hole)

      “curses! foiled again!”