Brit Bomb Bust

British media are reporting the discovery of a car bomb near Piccadilly Circus. It was meant, M15 sources are speculating, as a Welcome Wagon greeting to incoming P.M. Gordon Brown:

The bomb was in the Haymarket, near the popular Regent Street shopping area, and security sources say it could have been timed to coincide with Gordon Brown's first day as Prime Minister.

An eyewitness said a man had crashed the vehicle into bins near Tiger Tiger and then ran off, before the alarm was raised.

The timing coincided with hundreds of revellers leaving nightspots, but police said there was no intelligence to suggest such an attack.

The Evening Standard reports a suspected Al-Qaeda connection, though the failed bomber’s Frank Drebin-like parking job is surely raising doubts amongst counter-terrorism experts.

Comments

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 11:07am | #

What exactly is an "Al Qaeda connection" anyway? Any third rate Islamist group can call themselves "Al Qaeda in X Country" even if they have no other links to the central command structure.

J sub D | June 29, 2007, 11:11am | #

What an incompetent boob. I thought Al-Quida was more professional than this.

joe | June 29, 2007, 11:16am | #

Actually, Cesar, the bin Laden crowd is pretty protective of their brand name. It took months of negotiations before they'd let Zarqawi call his group "Al Qaeda in Iraq." It was bin Laden's circle who made him stop producing those beheading videos if he wanted to use the name.

Eric Dondero | June 29, 2007, 11:18am | #

More frightening than an Al Qaeda connection is the likelyhood that this is homegrown Muslim terrorism.

Muslim men in Britain (and across Western Europe), are underemployed, poor and extremely sexually frustrated.

Note the target of the bombing was a a discoteque, described by one Fox News reporterette Amy Kellog this morning as a "notorious meat market."

It's going to be real interesting to see how the libertarian community reacts to this.

Now Muslim terrorists are explicitly targetting social libertines.

Do we libertarians rise up and fight back against these 11th Century nutjobs, or just cower in fear (the Ron Paul approach), and pretend they will just go away?

Juliet | June 29, 2007, 11:19am | #

"What exactly is an "Al Qaeda connection" anyway?"

To paraphrase Shakespear:

Shit, by any other name still smells like shit.

MP | June 29, 2007, 11:20am | #

Do we libertarians rise up and fight back against these 11th Century nutjobs, or just cower in fear (the Ron Paul approach), and pretend they will just go away?

Kill 'em all. Right, Eric?

dhex | June 29, 2007, 11:21am | #

[quote]It was bin Laden's circle who made him stop producing those beheading videos if he wanted to use the name.[/quote]

they have very strict franchising rules.

eric, i'll take "cower in fear" for a $1000 please.

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 11:22am | #

I knew some third-rate neocon would brings the specter of "Eurabia" into this thread, as predictably as a leftist would scream about "Peak Oil" every time theres a thread on the economy.

Next time I'll bet money.

thoreau | June 29, 2007, 11:23am | #

I'll take any approach that thwarts violent guys but leaves non-violent people alone, Eric.

What about you?

J sub D | June 29, 2007, 11:25am | #

Now Muslim terrorists are explicitly targetting social libertines.

Eric Dondero - I don't know if you'vee been keeping up with the news, but "targeting social liberties" ain't exactly a new development for the rightious, religious, "religion of peace" jihadists.

Grotius | June 29, 2007, 11:26am | #

I'm making popcorn.

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 11:28am | #

Oh, and Eric, one more thing-

Aren't we fighting them over there so they won't fight us here? Why was there a bomb planted, then? Shouldn't being in Iraq magically protect us from terror attacks?

Grotius | June 29, 2007, 11:29am | #

Cesar,

Over there may include Europe.

J sub D | June 29, 2007, 11:29am | #

I'll take any approach that thwarts violent guys but leaves non-violent people alone, Eric.

thoreau - How about non-violent sympatizers and collaborators? Just asking?

joe | June 29, 2007, 11:29am | #

If your political pitch revolves around the concept that libertarians don't realize that militant Islamists don't like booty, liquor and dancing, you might want to come up with a Plan B.

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 11:30am | #

But, the UK has an army in Iraq. Using the logic of war supporters, that should stop attacks from happening in their country.

MikeP | June 29, 2007, 11:31am | #

Amazingly enough, when you type M15 into Google, MI5 is the second hit.

thoreau | June 29, 2007, 11:32am | #

thoreau - How about non-violent sympatizers and collaborators? Just asking?

Define "collaborators." If they're providing assistance to guys engaging in violence then they aren't really non-violent.

And define "sympathizers." If they're actively helping somebody engage in violence then they're basically engaging in violence themselves. If they're just kind of pissed off then I don't see what should or even could be done about them.

VM | June 29, 2007, 11:32am | #

JsubD: quoth - Al Kaida is a fucking clownshoes operation.

Frank drebin is an awesome reference!

Social libertines, eh. That figures.

Right after this guy was caught doing something very libertine. (SFW, since it's a newspaper)

but it's very URKOBOLDIAN... indeed.

Grotius | June 29, 2007, 11:33am | #

Cesar,

The problem may be that they've drawn down their forces there*. Or something.

*That's correct, right? They have significantly drawn down their forces in Iraq.

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 11:34am | #

Yes, but in 2005 they hadn't, and there was a much worse attack on them then. And then theres Spain, which was also bombed when it had troops in Iraq.

Grotius | June 29, 2007, 11:36am | #

Cesar,

Clearly the problem is that they needed to send more troops to Iraq even after the initial invasion. Heck, maybe they should have exported a large segment of Britain's civilian population.

BTS | June 29, 2007, 11:39am | #

"defend the charge vigorously."
- From the sex bike story.

I think I'll just let that last word's irony speak for itself.

BTS | June 29, 2007, 11:40am | #

Well...irony is the wrong word. It's just funny, dammit!

Grotius | June 29, 2007, 11:40am | #

Cesar,

Indeed, imagine the sitcom possibilities associated with having a British and Iraqi family living side by side. It might be a bit like Coronation Street meets whatever the Iraqis watch which is a soap opera equivalent.

J sub D | June 29, 2007, 11:40am | #

If they're providing assistance to guys engaging in violence then they aren't really non-violent.

In my mind, providing food and shelter is collaboration.

And define "sympathizers."

For you thoreau, I'll work on a complete, accurate definition. Rest assured, it will include those dancing in the streets after 9/11.

Dan T. | June 29, 2007, 11:42am | #

If the Brits hadn't spent the last 4 years bombing and killing innocents in Iraq, this plot never would have occured. If you've noticed, there's been no bombings in Spain since they pulled out of Iraq.

thoreau | June 29, 2007, 11:42am | #

There's a big difference between people that I have no use for (e.g. those dancing in the streets after a tragedy) and people that I want to kill.

And providing food and shelter is only collaboration if you know what your guest is up to.

Pro Libertate | June 29, 2007, 11:42am | #

joe,

Ah, but al Qaeda isn't McDonalds, with busloads of lawyers to protect their trademark. NPR recently ran a piece on all the groups using the al Qaeda name without permission. . .so to speak. From what I heard, it sounded like al Qaeda might actually be okay with any radical group using its name, because it makes them look bigger and more important.

I wonder what kind of franchise fee comes with operating an al Qaeda franchise? Can a franchise owner buy his own weapons, or must he use only ones provided by al Qaeda? Are there marketing restrictions? Personally, I'd advise any small terrorismman to operate his own independent terrorism business, to avoid the overhead and heartache associated with franchising. The SBA would surely help with the start-up funding, especially given that most small terrorismmen are MBEs.

jimmy smith | June 29, 2007, 11:43am | #

Mercedes is the bomb of choice. Can't get much fertilizer in a mini-Cooper and would arouse suspicion at an avant-garde club at 2 AM. Besides it would be a standard transmission.

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 11:45am | #

Indeed, imagine the sitcom possibilities associated with having a British and Iraqi family living side by side. It might be a bit like Coronation Street meets whatever the Iraqis watch which is a soap opera equivalent.

I was thinking a comedy, maybe like Keeping Up
Appearances meets

Finkelstein | June 29, 2007, 11:45am | #

No shit, Dan.

After all, it was invading Iraq that caused 9/11.

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 11:45am | #

should read meets The Martyrs. PREVIEW!

J sub D | June 29, 2007, 11:47am | #

There's a big difference between people that I have no use for (e.g. those dancing in the streets after a tragedy) and people that I want to kill.

We differ, Oh well.

And providing food and shelter is only collaboration if you know what your guest is up to.

We agree, Oh well.

Grotius | June 29, 2007, 11:48am | #

Cesar,

It might look something like this.

Ben | June 29, 2007, 11:49am | #

For all we know this could be just as fake as the "plot to blow up JFK".
Yeah another point for us on the war on terror!!

de stijl | June 29, 2007, 11:49am | #

Word on the Arab street is that Al Qaeda will be implenting a new uniform standard amogst their franchises to help strengthen their brand awareness and image.

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 11:50am | #

Grotius--

And it could star Eric Dondero as the "whacky neighbor".

Andrea | June 29, 2007, 11:52am | #

"Aren't we fighting them over there so they won't fight us here? Why was there a bomb planted, then? Shouldn't being in Iraq magically protect us from terror attacks?"

Does Indonesia have troops in Iraq? Is that the reson for the Bali bombing?

The bottom line is that there are people that want to kill other people in the name of Islam.

J sub D | June 29, 2007, 11:52am | #

After all, it was invading Iraq that caused 9/11.

No shit. 9/11 didn't have a goddam thing to do with invading Iraq, and Iraq didn't have a goddam thing to do with 9/11.

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 11:52am | #

Andrea, I did not say the bombings would occur if you had troops in Iraq. I was saying having troops in Iraq doesn't protect you from bombings. Big difference.

MP | June 29, 2007, 11:52am | #

If you've noticed, there's been no bombings in Spain since they pulled out of Iraq.

But Dan, if you give in to the terrorists, they win! (I think they win a free breakfast at Denny's.)

dhex | June 29, 2007, 11:53am | #

but george bush isn't muslim.

OR IS HE?

Andrea | June 29, 2007, 11:54am | #

"I was saying having troops in Iraq doesn't protect you from bombings. Big difference."

So why was Bali bombed then?

Grotius | June 29, 2007, 11:55am | #

dhex,

You forget the...

Dunh dunh dunh dah...

(now look a the camera with your eyes wide open)

joe | June 29, 2007, 11:55am | #

Pro Lib,

No, they're not McDonald's. They do have a pretty good media operation, though, and a video of bin Laden renoncing somebody of some group can calling them "bad Muslims" would pretty effectively destroy any group's ability to garner the support of al Qaeda fans. Very libertarian, it its own way.

Based on the Zarqawi story, it seems that groups seeking to be "al Qaeda in" whatever make sure to go through the trouble of at least being "al Qaeda certified."

J sub D | June 29, 2007, 11:56am | #

but george bush isn't muslim.

No, he's an evangelical Xian. That's almost as dangerous.

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 11:56am | #

Andrea-

I'm not familiar enough with the bombing to say, but I do know Indonesia stationing troops in Iraq wouldn't have prevented it. Did you read what I said?

joe | June 29, 2007, 11:56am | #

The Bali bombing targetted tourists, most of whom were Austrialian.

Pro Libertate | June 29, 2007, 11:57am | #

de stijl,

Exactly why new terrorismpersons should operate independently. Weird uniforms and large overhead make it unworkable to go the franchise route.

dhex,

No, but this election has two potential "Manchurian Candidates." One is McCain, who could be a programmed agent of the Vietnamese. The other is Obama, who could be a Muslim plant.

David | June 29, 2007, 11:58am | #

Mr. Dondero,

I'm curious, what do you want to do? Do you suggest that we start slaughtering every Muslim every time you suspect that "al Queda" is being the attack or foiled attack du jour. Has it occurred to you that a bomb in a car can pulled off by a single nutjob with no conspiracy, central planning,or sleeper cell?

thoreau | June 29, 2007, 11:58am | #

joe, reputation and brand certification are not enough to make something even vaguely libertarian. Not even in one aspect.

I'm trying to protect our brand here.

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 12:00pm | #

2 things:

1. "London Terror Car" is a great name for a band

2. The car contained a big scary 60 liters of Petrol, or in less scary parlance, 15 gallons of gas. So... the big scary terror car had a full tank of gas and some propane cylinders. Sounds like a guy going to a barbecue.

Finally, the car was crashed near a trendy party spot, late at night, and the driver ran away after he crashed. Drunk Driver?

This has "big scary boogabooga stay scared of those muslims" written all over it.

NoStar | June 29, 2007, 12:00pm | #

"It's going to be real interesting to see how the libertarian community reacts to this."

Thanks to Eric Dunderhead at least we now know what the "neo-con pretending to be libertarian" response is and it's not interesting at all.

steveintheknow | June 29, 2007, 12:02pm | #

No one is mentioning Wimbledon! Fucking around with bombs near the Greatest of Greats is, in fact, HARSHING MY MELLOW.

Continue on.

joe | June 29, 2007, 12:03pm | #

Randolph Carter,

The report I saw on CNN - the most trusted name in Paris Hilton - stated that the car was parked with nails.

FWIW.

joe | June 29, 2007, 12:04pm | #

Harshing your mellow?

steveintheknow, if you don't listen to Steely Dan right now, the terrorists win.

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 12:05pm | #

aah, slightly more realistic then. you meant packed, not parked, right?

jimmydageek | June 29, 2007, 12:05pm | #

The report I saw on CNN - the most trusted name in Paris Hilton - stated that the car was parked with nails.

So, a carpenter was driving the car?

Maybe it was Jesus....

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 12:06pm | #

ooh even better band name:

Jesus Christ and the London Terror Car

jimmydageek | June 29, 2007, 12:06pm | #

Or did I interpret that wrong...

The report I saw on CNN - the most trusted name in Paris Hilton - stated that the car was parked with nails.

Was the parking break not operational? Did this guy have to resort to nailing the car down?? WTF.

dhex | June 29, 2007, 12:10pm | #

"No, but this election has two potential "Manchurian Candidates." One is McCain, who could be a programmed agent of the Vietnamese. The other is Obama, who could be a Muslim plant."

you forgot romney, a 4th column for invaders from the planet WHATTHEFUCK.

also guliani is clearly the post-fascist result of secret nazi time travel experiments when they realized the third reich wasn't going to cut the mustard. thankfully homeboy can't keep his schnitzel out of the fraus so their experiment is kaput before it starts.

J sub D | June 29, 2007, 12:11pm | #

It appears to this humble observer that what we have is an incompetent loser, probably acting alone, Posibly acting in concert with one or two other incompetent losers. "Incompetent loser" is the critical term here.

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 12:13pm | #

you forgot romney, a 4th column for invaders from the planet WHATTHEFUCK.

Yes, but what is even scarier is the fact Tom Tancredo is a Vorticon secretly controlled my Mortimer McMier.

steveintheknow | June 29, 2007, 12:14pm | #

steveintheknow, if you don't listen to Steely Dan right now....

Always down. Always.

Pro Libertate | June 29, 2007, 12:16pm | #

dhex,

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps this is the All-Manchurian Candidate Election. Except for Ron Paul, who is what he appears to be.

rho | June 29, 2007, 12:17pm | #

Do we libertarians rise up and fight back against these 11th Century nutjobs, or just cower in fear (the Ron Paul approach), and pretend they will just go away?

Oh, come on.

If you want to be accurate, the Ron Paul approach is to stop trying to be the world's nanny. If you want to fight these 11th century nutjobs, declare war on them. (Of course, there you have a problem. Declare war on who? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? These are probably the two most dangerous states, why aren't they in the crosshairs?)

It's also not reasonable to suggest that being in Iraq is the cause of all our woes. It certainly is one of them, but it's not the end-all be-all. I do, however, question the "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" strategy. Because it certainly doesn't look like that's the case. Seems to me that we'll have to fight them there and fight them here--if not now, then eventually--which makes me wonder what exactly are we getting out of our blood and treasure in Iraq?

Eric Dondero | June 29, 2007, 12:20pm | #

Actually, I must congratulate Reason.com. I have scanned virtually all the top libertarian websites this morning (LewRockwell.com, Liberty Papers, Free Liberal, FMM, ect...). Reason is the ONLY ONE to even have mentioned the story, besides my own www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com, of course.

Shows Reason doesn't have their head in the sand, (or up their asses), like the non-interventionist nutjobs at Rockwell/Raimdondo/Ron Paul Inc.

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 12:21pm | #

uh, Lew Rockwell's blog mentioned it. Reading comprehension much, Eric?

MP | June 29, 2007, 12:22pm | #

Reason is the ONLY ONE to even have mentioned the story

And note also the frightened responses of the commenters. Running scared, they are.

BOO!

J sub D | June 29, 2007, 12:23pm | #

--which makes me wonder what exactly are we getting out of our blood and treasure in Iraq?

Nothing. To use a poker analogy, we're just throwing good money after bad.

Eric Dondero | June 29, 2007, 12:23pm | #

Isn't it funny how political labels change over the years?

Being pro-Abolish the IRS, Pro-Massive Spending Cuts, Pro-Privatization, Pro-Property Rights, Pro-Choice, Pro-Drug Legalization, Pro-Free Speech, Pro-Sexual Liberties, used to mean "libertarian."

Now it has morphed to mean "NeoCon" to some.

dhex | June 29, 2007, 12:24pm | #

dammit, mp you scared me again and i dropped my latte. i was going to use it as a helmet if the scary muslims come.

wait a minute. i was going to get falafel at lunch...OH GOD THEY'RE IN MY HEAD!

Eric Dondero | June 29, 2007, 12:27pm | #

It's pretty damned sickening that some of you here would make light of this terror plot, even joking about it.

There are some things that can and should be joked about. Terrorism is not one of them.

You all are an absolute embarrassment to the libertarian movement.

Go join Michael Moore's brigade, and leave us real libertarians lone, PLEASE!

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 12:29pm | #

Eric,
You left out "pro-foreign adventures" and "pro-pee-pee-pants levels of terror at the thought of terrorism"

which make you a neocon.

Foreign Policy! It puts the neo in neocon.

MP | June 29, 2007, 12:30pm | #

and leave us real libertarians lone, PLEASE!

If you get me drunk before the stock market closes, I'm gonna get fired.

Eric Dondero | June 29, 2007, 12:31pm | #

Again, would someone please address the issue at hand: The fact that these Radical Muslims have apparently targetted a Discoteque with by some accounts 1,700 patrons, mostly young one would presume.

The natural libertarian reaction would be "hey, these Muslim fucks are targetting us! We libertarians are the ones who support Sex, Booze and Rock 'n Roll, after all."

Yet, you all seem to be casting the traditional libertarian agenda of Sexual liberties, and Good Times aside, in the name of strident non-interventionism.

How about a little empathy for the 1,700 party goers at Tiger Tiger please. You'd expect nothing less from supposedly "socially tolerant" libertarians.

jimmydageek | June 29, 2007, 12:32pm | #

Go join Michael Moore's brigade, and leave us real libertarians lone, PLEASE!

If we did that, Eric, you'd be all alone on these threads. You wouldn't want that, would you??

shecky | June 29, 2007, 12:34pm | #

There are some things that can and should be joked about. Terrorism is not one of them.

And get off my lawn!

Eric Dondero | June 29, 2007, 12:34pm | #

Oh, I get it Randolph Carter.

So let me get this straight: Economic issues and Social issues don't matter any more, 'eh?

One is defined solely by their stance on Foreign Policy.

Golly gee, imagine that, Pro-Life Christian Conservatives like Pat Robertson, Bill Bennett and the like are in the same ideological camp as libertine libertarians.

Who'd have thunk it?

Oh, and all those Pro-Defense libertarians from years gone by like Dr. John Hospers, Barry Goldwater, Dana Rohrabacher, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and our very own Bob Poole, along with more recent Pro-Defense libertarians like Neal Boortz, Dennis Miller, PJ O'Rourke, and Larry Elder, are/were not "real libertarians" but rather "NeoCons."

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 12:35pm | #

Also, libertarianism isn't all about "sexual liberties and good times," it's about those other liberties that are equally important.
Liberties that are threatened by open-ended wars on various concepts and ideologies.
Not to say that Islamic terrorism is no big deal, they obviously can do some pretty horrible things. But so can governments trying feebly to protect you from those threats, especially when their attempts involve incomprehensible wars.

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 12:36pm | #

Dunderhead-

Secret trials, wiretapping without a warrant, holding people without trial and without being charged with a crime, the "PATRIOT" act, Presidential signing statements, increased executive power, a massive military budget, the warfare-welfare state--I guess you are in favor of all those right? Very "libertarian" of you.

dhex | June 29, 2007, 12:37pm | #

"It's pretty damned sickening that some of you here would make light of this terror plot, even joking about it."

dude, you support rudy guliani. don't lecture us on morality. (sophistry, however, is a go. lesson 1: every third word is "9/11")

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 12:38pm | #

No, Eric, the exact opposite. I'm just saying that if your idea of libertarianism revolves around being a libertine, it's rather self-serving and ideologically shallow.

NoStar | June 29, 2007, 12:41pm | #

Eric,

Neo-Con refers to those Republicans who have taken up the military expansionist policies advocated by Democrat/Socialist Hawks like Jean Kirkpatrick who switched parties without switching ideologies.

NoStar

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 12:42pm | #

to wit:
I think that the workers should control the means of production, and that things should be run by the dictum "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." But the people who run the Party should be allowed to hold private property and live outside the bounds of my ideology.

See how that person would no longer be a communist?

Biff | June 29, 2007, 12:43pm | #

Does Indonesia have troops in Iraq? Is that the reson for the Bali bombing?

Bin Laden explained his reasons for the bombing:

"Australia was warned about its participation in Afghanistan, and its ignoble contribution to the separation of East Timor," the tape says.

The bottom line is that there are people that want to kill other people in the name of Islam.

No, it's more complicated than that, but if you're just looking for an excuse for endless war, I guess that explanation will do.

Pro Libertate | June 29, 2007, 12:44pm | #

Giuliani's track record in New York--both as a government attorney and as mayor--makes me wonder how anyone in their right mind could label him as a libertarian. He may have some positions that are libertarianesque, but those positions don't make him a libertarian. Hell, Bush and Bill Clinton had some libertarian moments.

Paul's the only choice for libertarians. The effort against al Qaeda will continue regardless of who is in the White House, political realities being what they are, but it isn't wacko to think that we've got better things to do than to get more bogged down in the Middle East. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, the situation being what it was, but there's no rational, nonreligious reason for us to continue to be as involved as we are. We get only a small percentage of our oil from the region, anyway. Let Europe and China meddle if they must, and I'm sure Israel can keep on keeping on without our direct assistance.

Biff | June 29, 2007, 12:49pm | #

The fact that these Radical Muslims have apparently targetted a Discoteque

It's not a fact yet, jackass:

Two officials in Washington briefed on the investigation said British authorities had so far found no terrorist link in the early hours of the investigation.

Chris S. | June 29, 2007, 12:49pm | #

I'm with MP. Eric, your use of hilarious and drink inducing catch phrases are going to get me fired.

No more "real libertarians for 9-11!!!!" until 6:30 est, k?

Doug | June 29, 2007, 12:52pm | #

It was found in the "HAYMARKET" near "PICCADILLY CIRCUS"... what the hell is wrong with London?

David | June 29, 2007, 12:52pm | #

Eric,

Instead of attacking you political enemies, how about answering a few questions? How do you personally think that we should react in the case of a single person or small conspiracy (4 or 5 people)trying to perpetrate a terrorist act? Doe your answer change based on the religion of the perpetrators?

As a Libertarian Republican, do you think that the U.S. should intervene in every terrorist act regardless of location or is this instance as British problem? How should they or "we" handle it?

I doubt you'll get much argument that the UK should try to find the individuals involved, and if the were supported by a larger organization, to take action that organization.

ed | June 29, 2007, 12:56pm | #

It's going to be real interesting to see how the libertarian community reacts to this

It might have been, had it not been for the cat fight above. Put your claws away, ladies.

just another lurker | June 29, 2007, 12:57pm | #

More details will no doubt be forthcoming. But using gasoline and propane cylinders in combination (and yes, we're talking about gasoline OTHER than stored in the car's tank) sounds like a poor-man's attempt at a fuel-air explosive device. Propane to go whoosh first and disperse the gasoline in fine droplets, which then ignites with devastating force.

And as to the poor parking job: since they reported smoke or fumes coming out of the car, it sounds like something went awry. Not unreasonable to speculate something like: a propane valve get jarred, clouds of cold gas start filling the back seat, driver goes "Oh shit", crashes the car into some dumpsters and then runs like hell.

joe | June 29, 2007, 1:05pm | #

The natural libertarian reaction would be "hey, these Muslim fucks are targetting us! We libertarians are the ones who support Sex, Booze and Rock 'n Roll, after all."

And the natural response of someone who writes a blog with "Republican" in the name would be, "Phew, those Muslim fucks aren't targetting us. We right wing conservatives are the ones who oppose Sex, Booze and Rock and Roll."

That's why none of the actual libertarians take you seriously, Eric.

Tammy | June 29, 2007, 1:06pm | #

"I'm curious, what do you want to do?"

I'd fire bomb Gaza just like Dresden. It's big stick time.

joe | June 29, 2007, 1:07pm | #

Eric,

The fact that you think someone must support your Massive Government Program to Protect Social Libertinism in order to be a libertarian is why you are not a libertarian.

Even I get that, and I'm just here for the nachos.

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 1:08pm | #

Tammy Gaza is pretty bombed-out already.

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 1:09pm | #

and when real criticism comes around Eric Dondero (ED? Electile disfunction?) runs away to safer shores.

rho | June 29, 2007, 1:10pm | #

Eric:

The natural libertarian reaction would be "hey, these Muslim fucks are targetting us! We libertarians are the ones who support Sex, Booze and Rock 'n Roll, after all."

Actually, the "natural libertarian" reaction would be "this guy was targeting folks". It takes quite a leap to rope in all Muslims on that murder conspiracy.

That said, I think David asked a pertinent question: what are we to do as Americans when a lunatic with a grudge tries to blow up a disco in the U.K.? Who do you point the gun at? I'm not opposed to pointing the gun at people who seek to actively destroy us, but let's not just point the gun willy-nilly.

At the same time, let's consider that, perhaps, the actions of our own government precipitate some degree of international animosity. Surely you, a doubter of the abilities of big-government, would also agree that big-government doesn't magically gain hitherto unknown skills when it works its will abroad?

Put another way, if our federal government can't fix poverty in the U.S., why on Earth would you assume they can fix the problem of international terrorism?

Eric Dondero | June 29, 2007, 1:13pm | #

As a "Libertarian Republican" what's my foreign policy views?

Simple!

Talk softly, carry a big stick.

In other words: "Someone fucka with you, you fucka with them 10 times harder."

The Radical Muslim fucks started it. It's time we kick their asses, bigtime!!!

Bronwyn | June 29, 2007, 1:15pm | #

I'm disappointed. No one has yet pointed out that we are all guilty of having an "Al-Qaida" connection.

Six Degrees of Osama Bin Laden, people!

So, what? The investigation and interrogations stop if you're more than two degrees?... three?

The Owl asks: How many degrees does it take to get to the center of an Al-Qaeda conspiracy?

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 1:15pm | #

In other words: "Someone fucka with you, you fucka with them 10 times harder."

Sure, because the arena of international relations is just like a game of Grand Theft Auto.

Asshat.

Eric Dondero | June 29, 2007, 1:15pm | #

NeoStarr, that's your definition of "NeoCon."

My definition of NeoCon means Religious Right Conservative, i.e. Charles Krauthammer, Bill Bennett, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, et.al.

In essence, if you're a Pro-Lifer, you're a NeoCon.

If you're Pro-Choice, as I am, you are anything but.

Dave W. | June 29, 2007, 1:15pm | #

More frightening than an Al Qaeda connection is the likelyhood that this is homegrown Muslim terrorism.

Even more frightening than that is the possibility that this is a false flag attack by someone in England who dislikes Muslims, and is willing to commit terrorism to get others to dislike Muslims, too.

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 1:16pm | #

Indeed, it is very much in the spirit of Classical Libertarianism to say "that guy stole my pencil, I'm gonna burn down his fucking house and kill his dog! Hoo-ah!"

Bronwyn | June 29, 2007, 1:16pm | #

Also, how many ways can we spell the names of turrists and turrist groups?

Bill's dog | June 29, 2007, 1:17pm | #

""Australia was warned about its participation in Afghanistan, and its ignoble contribution to the separation of East Timor," the tape says."

That's a reason to bomb Australia, not Indonesia. Somebody buy that bitch bin lauden a map.

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 1:17pm | #

Again, Eric, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Eric Dondero | June 29, 2007, 1:18pm | #

ProLiberate, funny you ask that question "how anyone in their right mind could label Giuliani a libertarian."

Just this morning, Yahoo News has a big piece from a self-described "libertarian" columnist named Russ Kiminsky (sp?), talking about how he supports Giuliani over Fred Thompson.

Bronwyn | June 29, 2007, 1:19pm | #

Right, Eric. Key phrase there is, "in their right mind".... see how that works?

I could call myself a Chinese Pentacostal voodoo priestess, but that doesn't mean I qualify as such.

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 1:20pm | #

I'm a Flat-earther. I'm writing a column on how Eric Dondero is a flat-earther too!

See how it doesn't work?

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 1:21pm | #

Eric, do you support-

1) Secret trials

2) The idea of someone being held without trial and without being charged of a crime indefinitley if the President labels him an "enemy combatant"

3) Increased executive power, such as "Presidential signing statements" which basically allows the President to ignore laws that the Congress passes

4) Warrantless Wiretapping and domestic spying

5) The Patriot Act.

Please, answer "yes" or "no" to the above questions.

Eric Dondero | June 29, 2007, 1:24pm | #

Randolph,

As a matter of fact, my idea of "libertarianism" DOES INDEED revolve around social libertinism (and keeping the money that I earn rather than giving it to the IRS, as well).

Call that shallow if you want.

But I was recruited into the Libertarian Party of Florida, in Jacksonville, in 1985, straight out of the US Navy by two LP stalwarts (Nick Dunbar and Dianne Pilcher) who told me that "Libertarians were Conservatives who were Pro-Choice, hated Jerry Falwell and who liked to smoke pot."

It was only a year later that I discovered much to my dismay, that there was such a thing as a Non-interventionist Libertarian.

Back in the 1980s Libertarian Party there were plenty of Pro-Defense Libertarians, INCLUDING BOB POOLE AND THE LIBERTARIAN DEFENSE CAUCUS!!!

The Party, and the movement were far, far less obsessed with foreign policy issues back then. It was all about defeating the Religious Right, and protesting the IRS.

So, don't you dare fucking tell me that I ain't no "real libertarian."

I've been around in this movement since 19-fuckin'-85 Asshole!!

You're the Newbie.

Eric Dondero | June 29, 2007, 1:26pm | #

Cesar,

Yes, I do support all of the above for illegal aliens (like 3 of the Fort Dix Six) who are Muslim who enter the United States from Canada and Mexico.

I also support immediate deportation for all of them.

dhex | June 29, 2007, 1:28pm | #

"The Radical Muslim fucks started it. It's time we kick their asses, bigtime!!!"

no more movies for you, bucko.

i think they're making you too excitable.

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 1:29pm | #

Well, you know, the Constitution gives rights to "persons" not citizens but lets gloss over that for now.

Do you also support domestic spying against U.S. citizens without warrants? The Patriot Act (after all that applies to citizens and non-citizens alike).

Do you think a citizen should be able to be held without trial indefinitely if the President (in his infinite wisdom) declares him an "enemy combatant"?

What about Presidential signing statements which allows the President to ignore laws that Congress passes?

Finally, if Hillary Clinton is our president in 2009, would you trust her with all those powers?

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 1:30pm | #

OK homeboy, I was 1 year old in 1985, so you win the longevity argument. But there is a difference between pro-defense and pro-aggression that you seem unable to grasp.
You seem to like the fruits and outgrowths of a philosophy that consistently respects individual rights, but you have little respect for the philosophy itself.
And if you can't grasp the fact that Rudy Giuliani, a man who ran New York like it was his personal fiefdom, can not in good conscience be described as a libertarian, then I'm not surprised that you haven't waded into Locke, Hume, and Nozick.

de stijl | June 29, 2007, 1:30pm | #

My definition of NeoCon means Religious Right Conservative, i.e. Charles Krauthammer, Bill Bennett, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, et.al.

Charles Krauthammer - actually is pretty neoconish, but is also a big Reublicanist.
Bill Bennett - Republicanist nanny-stater
Bill Kristol - neocon
Fred Barnes - definition of Republicanism
Pat Robertson / James Dobson - Fundamentalist theocrats

You got 1.5 right.

It's really not that hard to look-up and research neoconveratism so you don't look like an utter idiot.

tarran | June 29, 2007, 1:33pm | #

Guys, the only thing you need to know about Eric is this:

He thinks that that a soldier in the employ of the U.S. government can morally kill an Iraqi child who is innocent of any wrongdoing, since a bunch of Saudi and Egyptian men killed a bunch of U.S. children.

His justification, and I quote, was "You fucka with my country and I fucka with your country"

In otherwords, he favors collactive punishment of people depending on what group they belong to regardless of whether they have actually commited any crime.

How anyone who believes on collectivism can self-identify as a libertarian is baffling to most people, but not to Eric. After all, he is proud of the fact that he got busted down to Seaman from Petty Officer 2nd Class for fighting, and is impatient about "boring philosophical stuff".

In other words, he is a moron. Arguing about what constitutes libertarianism with him is about as useful as discussing General Relativity with a Yanamono shaman.

Kip | June 29, 2007, 1:34pm | #

"Please, answer "yes" or "no" to the above questions."

Cesar = Bill O'Rielly

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 1:35pm | #

Tarran,
Don't insult Yanamono shamans like that!

I just like arguing, even if it is with a brick wall.

NoStar | June 29, 2007, 1:36pm | #

Eric, My God! You really are a Dunderhead.

"In essence, if you're a Pro-Lifer, you're a NeoCo.
If you're Pro-Choice, as I am, you are anything but."

The Neo-Con movement within the Republican party has always been centered around militaristic and interventionist (i.e. a non purely defensive) foreign policy. (You know, the very thing that causes Blow Back.) You are the first person I have ever heard say that abortion is the defining issue.

But, please stick around. You make the rest of us libertarian nutjobs look sane.

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 1:36pm | #

Kip-

I'll let you have the last word, sir!

Bronwyn | June 29, 2007, 1:38pm | #

tarran... I was trying to say that, but I must have been too oblique. You said it much better. Bravo!

Jake Boone | June 29, 2007, 1:38pm | #

Since every time I see his name the music plays in my head, I figure I might as well share.

When thinking about Dondero's "posse" (the "Libertarian Defense Caucus"), imagine them riding in on horses. The Bonanza theme* should soon start up:

DUN-duh-duh-DUN-duh-duh-DUN-duh-duh-DUN Don-DER-OOOOOOO!

In fact, I think that's the way his name should be spelled henceforth. Don-DER-OOOOOOO!

* Lyrics available here.

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 1:39pm | #

it's so much fun when Eric comes through.
You almost never get a chance to argue with a real life, flesh-and-blood strawman.

Neu Mejican | June 29, 2007, 1:40pm | #

"But I was recruited into the Libertarian Party of Florida, in Jacksonville, in 1985, straight out of the US Navy by two LP stalwarts (Nick Dunbar and Dianne Pilcher) who told me that "Libertarians were Conservatives who were Pro-Choice, hated Jerry Falwell and who liked to smoke pot.""

Wow.
That right there provides a solid basis for development of coherent policy on almost any issue.

Democrats are pro-choice, hate Jerry Falwell and like to smoke pot. . . are they 3/4ths libertarian?

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 1:40pm | #

Also, never before have I met a libertarian who likes being called a republican who smokes pot.

tarran | June 29, 2007, 1:41pm | #

Tarran,
Don't insult Yanamono shamans like that!

You're right Randolph, that was unjust of me. I'm sure a shaman is just likely as anybody to enjoy and understand a non-mathematical explanation of General Relativity of the sort that that George Gamow or Nigel Calder would give.

J sub D | June 29, 2007, 1:42pm | #

In essence, if you're a Pro-Lifer, you're a NeoCon.

If you're Pro-Choice, as I am, you are anything but.

I'm going to attempt to describe how stupid that statement is, Eric.

{thinks intently)

Nope, words fail me.

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 1:43pm | #

haha, I meant you were insulting them by including them an any sort of analogue for Eric Dondero. I feel that general relativity has been cheapened by its involvement in a Dondero analogy as well.

de stijl | June 29, 2007, 1:45pm | #

But using gasoline and propane cylinders in combination (and yes, we're talking about gasoline OTHER than stored in the car's tank) sounds like a poor-man's attempt at a fuel-air explosive device. Propane to go whoosh first and disperse the gasoline in fine droplets, which then ignites with devastating force.

Or a stupid man's collection of things that are flammable (inflammable?) - WHICH ONE IS IT? FUCK!

Screw it, stuff that burns.

de stijl | June 29, 2007, 1:47pm | #

In essence, if you're a Pro-Lifer, you're a NeoCon.

If you're Pro-Choice, as I am, you are anything but.

No we know why he thinks Rudy is a libertarian!

Jake Boone | June 29, 2007, 1:51pm | #

I'm sure a shaman is just likely as anybody to enjoy and understand a non-mathematical explanation of General Relativity of the sort that that George Gamow or Nigel Calder would give.

Not necessarily - the shaman may neither understand nor enjoy the explanation, but at least he's far less likely to bawl, "Back in 1985, a couple of guys explained that the world sits on four elephants standing on the back of a turtle!* So, don't you dare fucking tell me that I ain't no 'real physicist!' I've been thinkin' about how stuff works since 19-fuckin'-85, asshole!"

* Yeah, I don't really have any idea what the creation myth of a Yanamono shaman might be like.

tarran | June 29, 2007, 1:52pm | #

Randolph, again you are right. I humbly apologize. In my defense, coming up with the proper analogy that describes the futility of debating anything with Eric is really, really hard.

I'll do better next time.

Jake Boone | June 29, 2007, 1:56pm | #

Here's one for you, tarran:

"Arguing with Don-DER-OOOOOOO! is as futile as trying to come up with an analogy for the futility of arguing with Don-DER-OOOOOOO!."

No, wait a minute. I don't think that works the way I want it to.

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 1:58pm | #

sound and fury, signifying nothing?

NoStar | June 29, 2007, 2:03pm | #

The music that comes to my head when reading Dondero is from The Happy Wanderer. Of course, I change the words to the Harpy Blatherer:

Donderiiii, Dondereeee, Donderoohohohoho

Dan T. | June 29, 2007, 2:17pm | #

Dave W. | June 29, 2007, 1:15pm | #

Even more frightening than that is the possibility that this is a false flag attack by someone in England who dislikes Muslims, and is willing to commit terrorism to get others to dislike Muslims, too.

Dave, that is very insightful and spot-on speculation. Too bad most people aren't willing to even acknowledge the possibility of something similar to that happening on 9/11. Muslims have become scapegoats for our own bigotry and hate.

rob | June 29, 2007, 2:30pm | #

Look, I don't think ED (ask your doctor if "Propeciagra" is right for you) is particularly concerned with individual rights or any other particuarly libertarian positions on things, but you CAN be a libertarian and believe that the right to self-defense can extend to national defense/foriegn policy issues without being a neo-con or a Republican. I consider myself to be a libertarian minarchist but my position on some of the things that Cesar would try to keep me out of the clubhouse over...

1) Secret trials
- Don't support secret trials, do believe military tribunals.are appropriate in certain circumstances.

2) The idea of someone being held without trial and without being charged of a crime indefinitley if the President labels him an "enemy combatant"
- For POWs and other enemy combatants, this is the way it works, yep.

3) Increased executive power, such as "Presidential signing statements" which basically allows the President to ignore laws that the Congress passes
- Nope. No support for this.

4) Warrantless Wiretapping and domestic spying
- Nope. No support for this.

5) The Patriot Act. Do you also support domestic spying against U.S. citizens without warrants? The Patriot Act (after all that applies to citizens and non-citizens alike).
- I'm conflicted on this, I'll admit... I think PATRIOT contains a lot of tomfoolery, but I realize it's not nearly as bad as some of the other war-time measures the U.S. has taken, historically speaking. I also expect it, like those other war-time measures, to fade away with time.

Do you think a citizen should be able to be held without trial indefinitely if the President (in his infinite wisdom) declares him an "enemy combatant"?
- Nope.

What about Presidential signing statements which allows the President to ignore laws that Congress passes?
- Nope.

Finally, if Hillary Clinton is our president in 2009, would you trust her with all those powers?
- Nope, not comfortable with ANYONE having that kind of power.

Considering my positions on foreign policy and national defense, would I qualify for entry into the Playboy Mansion that is being officially considered libertarian? I think so... I don't see any contradiction in the positions I hold. But then maybe others here would see it differently.

In other words, some people here tend to think their version of libertarianism is the only one that counts - kind of like it's a religion - and try to exclude other people from the clubhouse. Others aren't so dogmatic. How does that shake out around these parts?

Matt | June 29, 2007, 2:36pm | #

When I think of Dondero's posse I try to find the perfect combination of warmongering hysteria and general ridiculousness...the PARTY POSSE!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mb3dxw-Ta4Y

"Your love's more deadly than Saddam...
That's why it's time to drop da bomb!"

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 2:39pm | #

Rob,
You're more or less in the club! I'll get the monogrammed smoking jacket made up for you by Monday.

I think the questions with your positions have to do with who has the discretion to declare someone an enemy combatant and under what circumstances they are so called.

Cesar | June 29, 2007, 2:44pm | #

rob-

I don't think any of your responses to the above makes you a neo-con. I made the above list because Dondero's boy (Giuliani) supports everything I just listed, whether applied to U.S. citizens or otherwise. And I think its pretty clear--and not rigid and uncompromising--to think that if you hold a lot of those positions you aren't very libertarian.

Your responses were completely reasonable IMO, certainly not neocon chest thumping about "doubling Guantanamo" and whatnot.

Its a very scary day when the Republican party gives a standing ovation to a presidential candidate who promises to continue warantless wiretapping.

rob | June 29, 2007, 2:49pm | #

RC - Cool! I've always wanted a monogrammed smoking jacket!

As for who has the discretion... I'm definitely not an "imperial presidency" supporter.

(I REALLY should have read that question a bit more carefully, obviously!) As the C-in-C, the president does set certain rules of engagement for U.S. forces. However, the idea that being elected to head the Executive gives you the power to declare someone an enemy combatant outside of the internationally accepted rules of the Law of Armed Combat gives me the 1984-style heebie-jeebies.

The whole idea of being captured on the battlefield while fighting in a war largely came about as an incentive to surrender (and make war a tiny bit less horrific) - because you're far better off being indefinitely held as a POW than if there was no quarter given and no opportunity to surrender.

Do I think the president should get to make that decision any old time he finds it convenient? Definitely not.

crimethink | June 29, 2007, 2:51pm | #

What I don't understand is, why do they have smoking jackets, but not shitting jackets? Sure, you don't want the smell of smoke to get on your clothes, but how much more does that apply to aerosolized feces?

Maybe this is an entrepreneurial opportunity...

NoStar | June 29, 2007, 2:57pm | #

Crimethink,

Just buy some Febreze.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Febreze

rob | June 29, 2007, 3:00pm | #

Cesar - No worries. I guess I tend to flinch when the club bouncer starts surveying who gets past the velvet rope because joe keeps calling me a Republican. He does it because he knows I consider it an insult... But still...

Jennifer | June 29, 2007, 3:19pm | #

You almost never get a chance to argue with a real life, flesh-and-blood strawman.

Don't be insulting, Randolph. The difference between Dondero and a real strawman is that the Scarecrow admitted he didn't have a brain.

XaabaZu | June 29, 2007, 3:25pm | #

Yvan Eht Nioj!

NoStar | June 29, 2007, 3:29pm | #

Good one Jennifer, but now I've got the Neo-con chant "Nine-one-one, tigers and bears. Oh my!"
running through my head.

Taktix® | June 29, 2007, 3:32pm | #

Neocon: Inside the beltway term for Jewish Republican using U.S. foreign policy to protect Israel (Not my definition!)

Libertarian: One who thinks the government is not always the best solution for fucking everything.

Dondero Libertarian: A Republican who wants to smoke pot and get abortions, and need a way justify it to their friends.

Kwix | June 29, 2007, 3:33pm | #

Again, would someone please address the issue at hand: The fact that these Radical Muslims have apparently targetted a Discoteque with by some accounts 1,700 patrons, mostly young one would presume.
...
Yet, you all seem to be casting the traditional libertarian agenda of Sexual liberties, and Good Times aside, in the name of strident non-interventionism.

Firstly, while there were reports that people saw a man run from the car after he crashed it, there are no reports of who this man is or what he looked like. I hate dragging up old history here but terrorism != "radical muslim" as evidenced by Oklahoma City. Granted, these days the odds are good, but not 100%.

Secondly, even if the guy is a)radical muslim and b)maybe a member of a terrorist cell(as opposed to a LoneWacko) what do you propose we do, invade Britain? Would that be non-interventionist enough for you?

Randolph Carter | June 29, 2007, 3:49pm | #

Nostar,
I believe the chant is "nine-one-one, muslims, face hair, oh my!

Kwix | June 29, 2007, 3:49pm | #

Of course I screwed up that last sentence. It should have read:

"Would that be interventionist enough for you?"

lunchstealer | June 29, 2007, 3:49pm | #

I hereby volunteer to invade this one pub I know of. Somebody else can handle the rest of the country.

Mmm, Shepherd Naeme.

lunchstealer | June 29, 2007, 3:50pm | #

s/Naeme/Neame/

edna | June 30, 2007, 8:03am | #

"Granted, these days the odds are good, but not 100%."

ok, 99.9%.

it could, after all, be deranged anglicans. remember, some anglican guy did something violent 20 years ago.

J sub D | June 30, 2007, 12:03pm | #

In other words, some people here tend to think their version of libertarianism is the only one that counts - kind of like it's a religion - and try to exclude other people from the clubhouse. Others aren't so dogmatic. How does that shake out around these parts?

Rob - Damned well put. If there is no room for diagreement and reasoned discussion in the libertarian party/movement we might as well call ourselves pentecostals.

Shem | July 1, 2007, 10:53pm | #

So, don't you dare fucking tell me that I ain't no "real libertarian."
I've been around in this movement since 19-fuckin'-85 Asshole!!
You're the Newbie.

Doesn't mean you're good at it. Just means you're old.