Lots of questions of course. Allah (pundit, that is) skeptically asks why the car was left and not detonated by cell phone immediately rather than hours later? The answer could be to preposition the vehicle for minimum suspicion and maximum carnage in the same fashion Iraqi thugs rig roadside bombs at night to hit our patrols during daytime.
This wouldn't explain why the bomber didn't just blow it when the cops showed up unless he wasn't within sight (not required anyway). But it might suggest a more sinister reason--he was awaiting a coordination "go call" but when the story hit TV the mastermind canceled it. After all, even a failed plot can be terrorizing.
Regardless of outcome the predictable intertube responses are flowing like sour vinegar so let's cut to chase and examine some, in stock form:
1. "Heh, I thought we were fighting them there so they won't come here?"
Sounds good on the surface but still flawed since it ignores attacks before we were engaged militarily. For instance, was the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in response to our kicking Saddam back in his box or for previous support for Israel? If the former (revenge for Saddam) that suggests he wasn't as hated as the CIA would now has us believe. If not, then it suggests it doesn't matter. An expanded answer explains more below.
2. "I question the timing"
This really comes from the bowels of the moonbatistan since there's almost always something going on they could claim Bush was trying to cover up. This also requires a belief that Gordon Brown or perhaps MI5/MI6 are in cahoots with Bush, which leads down a yellow brick road to the Illuminati.
3. "people are overreacting"
Some validity, since the chances of any one person becoming a terrorist victim are slim (unless they get WMDs). Not taken into consideration is that since 9/11 people tend to expect the worst in these things, including first responders. The root of this one stems from anger that such attacks tend to verify the preachings of Bush/Blair, which generally undercut every tenet of modern liberalism.
4. "This shows its useless and we need to retreat from the wars"
These are basically the terrorists using western handles.
5. "this proves John Kerry's point--we need to be using law enforcement, not the military"
One commenter at Huffpo called AQ terrorists "the Mad Hatters of The World", IE, they can never be eradicated by armies. Some validity but it also fails the logic quiz. If indeed they are rootless and stateless they cannot be brought to any tables for dialogue, leaving two options--total annihilation or total capitulation.
In Afghanistan AQ was backed with a small army equipped with Soviet tanks, so it seems this logic would require Scotland Yard or NYPD to parachute into the region and attack with handguns, pepper spray and billy sticks. Now apply that strategy to a sympathetic state housing terrorists and trying hard to develop WMD deterrents.
In the end, if the Piccadilly attack turns out to be a bunch of hacks it represents exactly the kind of terrorism we can all "live with". Kerry was correct when he said we can never completely 'win' a GWoT and that the goal should be to make the attacks as much of a "nuisance" as possible. But it seems the best way to achieve such a goal is multi-pronged, 1) use the military to deny training facilities and to go after (or pressure) states that sponsor, 2) use law enforcement to foil plots in advance using intelligence and, 3) use politics to change the minds and hearts of moderate Muslims to engage their help in the fight. We're already doing that.
It's risky to speculate before the facts are in. I've done it here a few times and received my tasteless and just dessert. But I'm a nobody. Somehow along the way Larry Johnson managed to convince the national media he was a somebody worth interviewing on all things CIA and terrorism. But based on his analysis of the failed London car bombings he needs to be instantly reclassified.
Now just consider how many times he's been quoted in support of the Wilsons.