« Blogger behind bars
As J-schools go… »

London to terrorist scum:

The Guardian wraps up coverage of the terror plot in London papers. My favorite headline, from the Star: “Up Yours. Murdering scum foiled”, withh a picture of a smiling child at Heathrow wearing an “Am I Bothered?” T-shirt.

Juan Antonio Giner points to a bunch of page ones and nominates the Philly Daily News’ as the best:

Tags:

This entry was posted on Friday, August 11th, 2006 at 7:31 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

23 Responses to “London to terrorist scum:”

  1. [last year’s girl] » Blog Archive » are you a twat or a blogger? Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 8:42 am

    [...] On that subject, however, the Daily Star’s take is legend (via BuzzMachine). [...]

  2. Paris ib Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 9:19 am

    Bought time the British got a move on. They’ve been traipsing after these morons for ages. Can we have a bit more decisiveness please?

    The F Word

  3. NAOMI Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 9:41 am

    I quite agree with the Guardian’s headline. That’s the only way to treat these terrorists, with the contempt they deserve.

  4. Angelos Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 10:16 am

    See what you can do with warrants?

    That’s OK, Georgie boy, you just stay on vacation. You’ll do less damage that way.

  5. Kat Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 10:55 am

    Are you talking about Gerorge Galloway, with whom the terrorists were aquainted??

  6. Tom Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 11:25 am

    Hubris is followed by . . . ?

  7. D. Mathews Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 2:23 pm

    Whatever the nature of the plot (and details are still rather sketchy) it is perhaps wise to eschew triumphalism for a more measured and intelligent analysis. First of all - contrary to justifying the current strategy in the so-called “war on terror”, these latest “events” serve, in my opinion, as evidence that said strategy continues providing fertile soil for such acts instead of discouraging them. As David Gardner, writing for the Financial Times, expressed:

    When the US and its British ally decided to invade Iraq in 2003, certain consequences were always clear, except, perhaps, to those driving the strategy in Washington and London. It was clear beforehand that this was a step that would proliferate jihadism, risked turning Iraq into a Lebanon cubed and would destroy western credibility and legitimacy in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

    Similarly:

    Jami Miscik, CIA deputy associate director for intelligence, expressed the consensus view that bin Laden recognized how Bush’s heavy-handed policies – such as the Guantanamo prison camp, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the war in Iraq – were serving al-Qaeda’s strategic goals for recruiting a new generation of jihadists. “Certainly,” Miscik said, “he would want Bush to keep doing what he’s doing for a few more years,” according to Suskind’s account.

    So much for the so-called flypaper theory of fighting them over there (in the Middle East) so we don’t have to fight them here at home.

  8. Dr. Mathews Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    Whatever the nature of the plot (and details are still rather sketchy) it is perhaps wise to eschew triumphalism for a more measured and intelligent analysis. First of all - contrary to justifying the current strategy in the so-called “war on terror”, these latest “events” serve, in my opinion, as evidence that said strategy continues providing fertile soil for such acts instead of discouraging them. As David Gardner, writing for the Financial Times, expressed:

    When the US and its British ally decided to invade Iraq in 2003, certain consequences were always clear, except, perhaps, to those driving the strategy in Washington and London. It was clear beforehand that this was a step that would proliferate jihadism, risked turning Iraq into a Lebanon cubed and would destroy western credibility and legitimacy in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

    So much for the so-called flypaper theory of fighting them over there (in the Middle East) so we don’t have to fight them here at home.

  9. LanceThruster Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 2:48 pm

    US Citizen to Rethuglican Scum: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me um, ah….we won’t get fooled again.

    Quit politicizing everything in order that Americans are kept in a perpetual state of fear that you think will allow you to escape the consequences of your crimes. How soon before GOP fiends determine that martial law is the only option left to keep them out of jail…I mean *us* safe?

  10. Web 2.0 Newspapers » U.K. Papers, U.K. Terror Plot, World Wide Media Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 3:03 pm

    [...] In a related post, Jarvis' BuzzMachine also directed us to some great links via media innovation watchers What's Next, including the post itself on how different papers handled the front page news and the source What's Next used to find thos pages. [...]

  11. Kat Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    Well, I seem to remember when we did nothing–they thought we were cowards who deserved to die and made sure the next attack was bigger and better. The only thing that will appease them is if I wear a potato sack and cover my head with a bee keeper’s net and allow myself to be bred like a cow.
    * The first World Trade Center bombing on February 26, 1993, Clinton did nothing
    * 10 months later in Mogadishu, Somalia… an attack on American military forces who were in country to bring food to starving Somalis, eighteen American soldiers were killed and the body of one was dragged through the streets in a gesture designed to formally humiliate the world’s greatest super power. Clinton turned tail and ran.
    * In 1995, Ramzi Youssef was captured in the Philippines with plans to use commercial airliners to blow up CIA headquarters among other targets.Plans to tighten airport security were rejected by the White House on the grounds that they might be construed as “racial profiling.” Did not want to piss off CAIR and ACLU. So he did NOTHING.
    * In 1996 in the Khobar Towers, 19 U.S. servicemen were killed but the Saudis refused to cooperate in tracking down the killers. The Clinton Administration did nothing.
    * In 1998, they blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania– 245 people were killed and 6,000 injured. Clinton’s bombed an aspirin factory in the Sudan and an empty terrorist camp in Khost.
    * In October 2000, al-Qaeda attacked the U.S.S Cole, an American warship, killing 17 servicemen. Clinton did nothing.
    *Able Danger pinponted that Atta piece of garbage–but Clinton did squat, so years later Sandy Berger had to hide incriminating evidence in his underwear and socks.

    Doing nothing gets you more terror–they feel brave and strive for bigger and better.

  12. Web2.0Newspapers Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    Thanks for the informative and pretty darn funny post. We’re enjoying what you do with your blog very much, Jeff, and we’ve linked to this entry as well. We hope your readers will check us out.

    http://www.web2.0newspapers.com/?p=17

    Our post also touches on U.K. and social media trends relating to how newspapers are dealing with the digital media revolution — this blog is a staple for us, natch.

    Happy Weekend, stay safe all,

    Web2.0Newspapers

  13. Dr. Mathews Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 4:36 pm

    Doing nothing gets you more terror–they feel brave and strive for bigger and better.

    Not quite accurate.

    It is not reasonable to think these people just woke up one day and decided to attack us. There is a history to everything and it behooves us to acquaint ourselves with that history.

    The single outstanding issue which generates the greatest tension in the Middle East is the Palestinian question. Solve the issue and you remove the raison d’être of terrorism. The USA has been backing and sustaining the Israeli war machine for decades. By aligning ourselves with Israel, we opening ourselves up for attack. May I suggest you familiarize yourself with the history of the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

    Eventually you will come across Camp David “peace process” and (if you search hard enough) the formal negotiations that took place in 2001 at Taba, Egypt:

    The Taba talks are one of the most significant and least remembered events of the “peace process.” While so far in 2002 (1/1/02-5/31/02), Camp David has been mentioned in conjunction with Israel 35 times on broadcast network news shows, Taba has come up only four times–never on any of the nightly newscasts. In February 2002, Israel’s leading newspaper, Ha’aretz (2/14/02), published for the first time the text of the European Union’s official notes of the Taba talks, which were confirmed in their essential points by negotiators from both sides.

    “Anyone who reads the European Union account of the Taba talks,” Ha’aretz noted in its introduction, “will find it hard to believe that only 13 months ago, Israel and the Palestinians were so close to a peace agreement.” At Taba, Israel dropped its demand to control Palestine’s borders and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians, for the first time, made detailed counterproposals–in other words, counteroffers–showing which changes to the 1967 borders they would be willing to accept. The Israeli map that has emerged from the talks shows a fully contiguous West Bank, though with a very narrow middle and a strange gerrymandered western border to accommodate annexed settlements.

  14. Kat Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    Mohammad was a terrorist–it began with the beginning of islam.

  15. james Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 8:46 pm

    yeah, kat, lets nuke em al, what?

  16. Dr. Mathews Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 9:08 pm

    Kat,
    I’m sure if any of the indigenous peoples of our region were still around today they would look upon Christians as barbarians and terrorists of the worst kind; and who could blame them?. As Father Bartholomew de Las Casas wrote in his Brief Account of the Devastation of the Indies:

    And the Christians attacked them with buffets and beatings, until finally they laid hands on the nobles of the villages. Then they behaved with such temerity and shamelessness that the most powerful ruler of the islands had to see his own wife raped by a Christian officer.

    From that time onward the Indians began to seek ways to throw the Christians out of their lands. They took up arms, but their weapons were very weak and of little service in offense and still less in defense. (…) And the Christians, with their horses and swords and pikes began to carry out massacres and strange cruelties against them. They attacked the towns and spared neither the children nor the aged nor pregnant women nor women in childbed, not only stabbing them and dismembering them but cutting them to pieces as if dealing with sheep in the slaughter house. They laid bets as to who, with one stroke of the sword, could split a man in two or could cut off his head or spill out his entrails with a single stroke of the pike. They took infants from their mothers’ breasts, snatching them by the legs and pitching them headfirst against the crags or snatched them by the arms and threw them into the rivers, roaring with laughter and saying as the babies fell into the water, “Boil there, you offspring of the devil!”

  17. Kat Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 10:32 pm

    Too bad Dr. Mathews that you are so stuck up the camel’s ass that you dwell on the past but fail to see the present–unwilling converts burned to death with rubber tires thrown around them, babies cut out of pregnant women who won’t accept islam, a whole village burned and the heads of the children impaled on poles, beheadings, etc. etc. You truly are a terrorist tool and I’m not about to turn your crank by continuing to try address today’s problem–islamofascism. You’d always find a way to excuse it by looking for equivalencies –but the Christians, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Pagans, the Animists–they all made the poor muslims do it.

  18. owl Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 11:35 pm

    The single outstanding issue which generates the greatest tension in the Middle East is the Palestinian question. Solve the issue and you remove the raison d’être of terrorism.

    Anyone that can say that with a straight face lives in their own special world. You might as well save your breath Kat.

  19. Dr. Mathews Says:
    August 11th, 2006 at 11:43 pm

    As we say in the West Indies, you’re the pot bottom calling the kettle black.

  20. mark singer Says:
    August 12th, 2006 at 2:17 pm

    Reading D. Mathews views, twice, all that comes to mind is == You silly, silly boy…..Grow some thorns on your berries you meek little fellow….

  21. Jonathan Trenn Says:
    August 12th, 2006 at 4:11 pm

    Here we go again, with the “Mohammed was a terrorist” shit. Kat goes back in history then takes Dr. Mathews to task for doing the same.

    By the way, Kat, while you’re pointing out Clinton’s failings, you perhaps forgot to mention that we didn’t do much throughout the eighties as well. Oh, we did bake cakes or Iranian leaders…the same who supported the scum in Hezbollah that bombed the U.S. Marine barracks 23 years ago, killing 241. Clinton wasn’t president then. It was Reagan.

    And to Dr. Mathews, if you solve the Palestinian question, you solve…the Palestinian question and nothing else. Many of the terrorist attacks against us have little or nothing to do with Palestine or our support for Israel. Instead, it’s because we have power and influence in that region as a whole, and the terrorists are religious fanatics who resent that influence.

  22. Decent_Bloke Says:
    August 13th, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    If you solve Palestine you will drain support for the extremists. If you can win over the Muslim majority you will eventually defeat the terror threat.

  23. D. Mathews Says:
    August 13th, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    J.T.
    Of course you are right. The Palestinian question is just one of many strands of the Arab Israeli conflict. They all need to (and can be) solved.

Leave a Reply


Site Meter