« Question of the Day: Is London Really Bush's Fault? | Main | This Weeks "Magic Quadrant" For Pundits »

Question of the Day: Part II - Whodunit?

I have a rule about not paying too close attention to information that comes out of the first 24 hours of a Terror Event, because its almost always wrong. For example, in the first 24 hours after Oklahoma City, We were told to look out for 'swarthy middle easteners'. several men were dragged off airlines if a I remember correctly. After Madrid, it was "The ETA".

Both turned out to be wrong. Dead Wrong.

So today I started to go over the information from the London Attacks to see what we know, and a thought jumped right out of the data and bit me square on the behind.

The Left makes a mantra of the idea that "Iraq didnt attack us on 9/11, We had no right to attack them".

So, what if it is actually Iran thats behind the London Bombings and not al-queda as we all assume?

Could Iran have done this? Oh, certainly they could. Does anyone not think that Hezbollah is not a Terror organization and that its not an Agent of Iran? No one is so far to the left that they could not argue that to be the case. There are people so far to the left that they would argue that Hezbollah is justified, but they cant argue that it isnt possible.

The London Attack has a few features that I find intriguing. First the number and size of the weapons and the explosive used appears to to be different than the Madrid Attacks, which tells me in my uneducated mind that its a different organization at work, with either a different source of explosives or a different 'master bomb maker'or both. I'm actually leaning to the idea that its local talent, not al-queda, at least not the al-queda weve grown to know over the years.

I think that al-queda is gone, and more about that later.

So its someone else. But what happens if it is found that Iran sponsored or supported this attack? If the left is to be consistent and says the US was justified in attacking Afghanistan after 9/11, would they also say that Great Britain would be justified in attacking Iran in response? And lets also say this, The US invoked the NATO charter for 9/11 and as NATO support in Afghanistan, as "an attack on one is an attack on all". That means if Great Britian were able to show with any credible evidence that it was Iran, that France and Germany are now on the hook for supporting a possible British invasion of Iran.

This puts a whole new spin on things, doesnt it?

Good thing we have an entire Army, Navy and Air Force ready to assist our strongest ally in that venture.

Posted @ July 09, 2005 11:24 PM