for all i know, maybe there really is evidence linking the various british attacks/attempted attacks to al qaeda.
but it is odd that al qaeda would use such bad materials as fuel canisters. both the failed london car bombs and the glasgow carbomb were essentially just vehicles filled with a lot of fuel. fuel burns, but it doesn't make a huge explosion like the car bombs used in the middle east, the original world trade center attack, or oklahoma city. it's simply not an effective way to make a car bomb.
after all, look at the glasgow attack. the attack was a "success", the attackers seemed to have scored a direct hit on their target. and yet, did anyone get hurt except for the attackers themselves? the car exploded and it burned the front of the terminal entrance. but it didn't do much more than that. the car bombs in london, if they had exploded, probably wouldn't have done much more damage unless people were standing right next to the cars.
so if it's al qaeda, it's a remarkably ineffective al qaeda attack.
but part of me wonders if there really is solid intelligence tying this to al qaeda. early on, we heard that the london bombs were thought to be al qaeda because they were designed to be two simultaneous explosions. is that all it really takes? is it really so inconceivable that no one else would ever think of such a thing?
i really hope they got more to tie these attack to al qaeda than just that. because there there seems to be a lot of al qaeda wanna bees out there. if any two-bit terrorist group gets to be labeled "al qaeda" as soon as they fail to detonate two bombs, aren't we just giving the group the cache they so desperately seek? which is why, unless there is actual evidence tying this group to al qaeda, the british government's decision to label this an al qaeda attack is simply irresponsible. they're literally doing what the terrorists want us to do, spreading more fear than the attacks really deserve.
