Besides the fact that most of the Al Qaeda members involved in the London bombings were British citizens, if you stand out then the IRA style attacks are easier to perform. You don't have to get through airport security or pass a background check. You just go shopping. Thousands of immigrants do it without being stopped by the police.
> They weren't asking agents to directly murder random individuals or property.
"In 1972, the Provisional IRA killed approximately 100 soldiers, wounded 500 more and carried out approximately 1,300 bombings,[66] mostly against commercial targets which they considered "the artificial economy".[67][68] The bombing campaign killed many civilians, notably on Bloody Friday on 21 July, when 22 bombs were set off in the centre of Belfast killing seven civilians and two soldiers. "
But otherwise I agree. The level of competence of Al Qaeda recruits is laughable in comparison to PIRA. Which is exactly my point - we've survived far worse, why are we giving up so much of what we stand for for protection from such incompetent terrorists?
Having citizenship doesn't confer the same benefits of having roots like the IRA did. It makes you less suspicious than someone without citizenship, sure. But it's still not sufficient for an IRA-style campaign.
e.g. Attacking a shopping mall or hotel isn't difficult and all but impossible to prevent, I absolutely agree. The difference is, the al qaeda agent won't find refuge a few blocks away. He won't melt into any crowd. He won't have trusted people from the community who will keep quiet or lie to the authorities for him. He won't have a weapon supplier who continues to supply him. And the resource that he does have are far more likely to melt away as it becomes clear that he is out to indiscriminately murder. Ergo the ability of any foreign agent to make subsequent strikes is drastically reduced.
And, unless I'm mistaken, the IRA never set out to murder non-uniformed, uninvolved civilians. Those that were killed, such as on Bloody Friday, were considered among the IRA wholly undesirable collateral damage. While it takes a certain kind of person to be convinced to drop off a bomb designed to strike a military target, or property target of a collaborator, that might kill innocent people, it's far, far more difficult to find people who will execute an attack designed to kill people going about their day.
And I absolutely agree that our response is laughable. But that's how it goes. Authority has no vested interest in proportional or rational response. Its rewards are aligned with over-reaction. If its masters (ostensibly the voters) don't choose to curtail that response or correct the reward structure, we'll only see continued escalation.
> But it's still not sufficient for an IRA-style campaign
Sure, you wouldn't be as successful as the IRA, but it would still be a damn sight easier than attacking planes. Consider the hotel attacks in India for an example of how poorly defended most locations are.
> the IRA never set out to murder non-uniformed, uninvolved civilians
They bombed shops and factories that they considered to be part of the 'artificial'' economy of the British rulers. Non-uniformed, uninvolved civilians tend to work in shops and factories, hence the huge number of civilian injuries and casualties.
More stats:
Deaths by status of victim[2]
Status No.
Civilian 1855
Members of security forces (and reserves) 1123
of whom:
British Army (excluding Northern Ireland regiments) 502
Royal Ulster Constabulary 301
Ulster Defence Regiment 196
Northern Ireland Prison Service 24
Garda Síochána 9
Royal Irish Regiment 7
Territorial Army 7
English police forces 6
Royal Air Force 4
Royal Navy 2
Irish Army 1
Members of Republican Paramilitary Groups 394
Members of loyalist Paramilitary Groups 151
> .... property target of a collaborator ...
Whilst the Troubles was nominally a political conflict the lines were drawn across ethnic/religious grounds. Being a Protestant was sufficient to draw fire from PIRA (similary Catholics were persecuted by the loyalists).
And all I'm trying to draw a line between, is the way the shops were the target for the IRA as opposed to the civilians, themselves.
It's a lot easier to talk someone into leaving a bomb next to a boiler than to pick up an assault rifle and fire indiscriminately into a crowd of civilians.
> They weren't asking agents to directly murder random individuals or property.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
"In 1972, the Provisional IRA killed approximately 100 soldiers, wounded 500 more and carried out approximately 1,300 bombings,[66] mostly against commercial targets which they considered "the artificial economy".[67][68] The bombing campaign killed many civilians, notably on Bloody Friday on 21 July, when 22 bombs were set off in the centre of Belfast killing seven civilians and two soldiers. "
But otherwise I agree. The level of competence of Al Qaeda recruits is laughable in comparison to PIRA. Which is exactly my point - we've survived far worse, why are we giving up so much of what we stand for for protection from such incompetent terrorists?