THE attack in London on June 3rd, which left seven people dead and 48 injured, was the third deadly terrorist incident in Britain in less than three months. At about 10pm a van was driven at speed into pedestrians on London Bridge, before three men got out and began stabbing people around Borough Market, just south of the Thames. The men, who one witness said had shouted “This is for Allah,” were shot dead by police.
Although the three suspects wore what looked like suicide-bombers’ vests, they turned out to be fake. Knives and a large van were the only murder weapons involved. Police believe that no other attackers were involved.
The crude attack bears some similarities to the assault on March 22nd in which Khalid Masood, a 52-year-old British convert to Islam, mowed down pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, killing four, before getting out to stab a policeman to death. In that attack the target was the Houses of Parliament. This time it appears that the terrorists honed in on people drinking in bars.
The simplicity of the latest assault is in contrast to the attack on May 22nd at the Manchester Arena, in which a relatively sophisticated bomb was used to kill 22 people and injure more than 100. The perpetrator of that attack, Salman Abedi, a 22-year-old British Muslim, may have undergone training in Libya.
Britain’s run of attacks demonstrates the dual nature of the terrorist threat. On the one hand are complex plots such as the Manchester attack, which have the potential to kill many but whose multiple strands give the security services a better chance of disrupting them. On the other are low-tech attacks like the latest one, which tend to have fewer casualties (in large part because of Britain’s strict gun laws) but are harder to anticipate and prevent.
For the second time, campaigning ahead of the general election on June 8th has been suspended. The Manchester attack appeared to have little effect on the direction of the race, in which the Conservatives have a dwindling lead over Labour.
