You seem to be bringing up a Catch-22 situation. You state you cannot have stability without reducing poverty. The problem is you can't address poverty in an unstable environment. Even if by some lucky chance you found a third-world farmer with a work ethic why would he plant a field if he knows his land could be siezed arbitrarily ?(Thanks to our USSC us Americans are now in the same boat) The fact is stability has to come first. The fact is the eventual governments in Afghanistan and Iraq will almost certainly have to be more authoritarian than our Western governments today. It was only 60 years ago that Japanese-Americans were interned, similar authoritarian actions are going to have to be taken in Afghanistan and Iraq.

To suggest that the problem with poor countries is that the people are lazy is a very bold statement. Do you have some statistics to back that up? If anything that is a lazy intellectual statement. I agree with the second part of your analysis, but you put your foot in your mouth too far to be taken seriously.

However, we are far off topic again. Africa is sufficiently covered here and Iraq is covered in several other topics.

The bigger question is how do we stop the attacks. It is obvious that no one will agree here on the Iraq policy, but the problem is more than Iraq. Had the US never gotten involved in Iraq, Al Qaeda was still at war with us. Do we give into their demands or do we try to eradicate them?

Who did this terrible deed?

Well, as it stands, no one has claimed responsibility for this cowardly act. The claim that was made earlier has turned out to be a hoax. We could speculate until the cows come home, but Islamo-facists like al-Qaeda are the number one suspects in everyone's mind.

From what I've gathered from the networks, analysts have said that this may not necessarily be al-Qaeda, but perhaps sympathizers or wanna-be jihadists who want to be recognized.

Why did they do this?

If it is al-Qaeda or those sympathetic to their cause, the answer is simple; to intimidate and harm those who support their enemy, the Western world.

Why London?

The British have always been prepared for terrorist acts, albeit from the likes of the IRA prior to 9-11, and since then, residents of London have always kept vigil over their city, when days like this, they expected, would surely arrive. London has and will continue to be a target.

Now, there's never really seemed to be a pattern when it came to Islamo-fascist terrorists and geographics. Their only barometer for success; maximum casualties and maximum exposure, that being the more that die, the better and the more people that see it the better.

Why the transit system?

Hundreds of people crammed into small spaces equal the maxium efficiency for any bomb that is used. You wont kill as many people when they're spread out.

Why now?

Again, I think this falls into patterns, and since we're not exactly sure who is responsible, it's hard to say. I don't think that the G8 Summit is so much of a factor as everyone would make it out to be. One would get as much attention from launching an attack in London if the summit was being held in the States. Not top mention that you'd try to get as close to the site of the G8 if it really was a target.

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere?

I'll quote the Roman governor in the movie Ben-Hur when he asks the character Messala "How do you fight an idea?"

How do you fight an ideology? You can't kill it with bullets or bombs, you can only stall that idea's practical application. As long as there are men who feel that they can twist the Koran to legitimize their actions, as long as there are men who feel that fear and violence will serve their agenda better than dialogue, the ideology that is Fundamentalist Islamic Jihad will not die. We can only hope to keep them outside Western Civilization's castle wall, while we figure out how to defeat them.

I think that all that practically can be done is being done, at least in the UK. (I won't dare speak for the US)


Now that I've addressed the questions, I'd like to address some of the other comments that have been made.



Well there's a simple answer for that. Iraq has been a warzone for over two years. No matter how you slice it, everywhere in Iraq is a target for the insurgents who seek to harm both the Coalition forces and their civilian supporters.

London, on the other hand, is not a warzone. London, and Britain as a whole, is not having to deal with violent insurgents or rebels on a day to day basis. Not to mention that the target was not in any way a military target.



First off, I'd like to see if we can actually attempt to make this coawardly act not be turned into a rant about Iraq or Bush's foreign policy for once.

Second, your proposition for invading Saudi Arabia is the most illogical idea I have ever heard regarding a solution. If you think that attacking Iraq was the boost terrorists needed to step up their attacks, what do you think attacking the HOLIEST PLACE IN ISLAM would get us? I fail to see how incurring the fury of every single Middle Eastern nation and the entire Muslim population on Earth is a better scenario than what we have now.

That being said, what makes you think that Iraq is the sole cause of all this. Was modern Islamic terrorism non-existent before March 2003? Were the U.S.S. Cole bombing in 2000, the Embassy bombings in 1998, the first WTC attack in 1993, and numerous other terrorist acts just figments of my imagination?

Was "Bring it on!" what really set these people off? I doubt it Popeye47.

Do you think that al-Qaeda and others would not act in such a manner after we attacked the Taliban after 9-11? I doubt it CrusingRam.

This isn't all about Iraq or president Bush, so let's please get some perspective.

And yes, DaytonRocker, we're all pretty sure Saddam Hussein wasn't responsible.



What disgusts me is the apparent lack of respect for the victims of this heinous crime by some in this thread. Instead of addressing the issue at hand, the choice has been made to use this tragedy into a diatribe on the Bush administration or the lack of attention for the plights of others. As horrible as third-world poverty is, this isn't about that, so if we could get off that subject and show a minute amount of revrence for the victims here, that would be nice.



I hope that you are refering to those on both sides of the political spectrum.

I think that a lot of people are not seeing the bigger picture here. Albeit I disagreed with almost Popeye47 ever says, he did point out this highly overlooked point. There is no short term solution. There is no magic weapon that will eliminate terror. We are in this for the long haul and we will be fighting in places like Afghanistan for many years to come. The sooner that we realize this, the better off we'll be.

Just for interests' sake, the actual statement was as follows;


In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, may peace be upon the cheerful one and undaunted fighter, Prophet Muhammad, God's peace be upon him.

Nation of Islam and Arab nation: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters.

We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid.

We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused.

God says: "You who believe: If ye will aid (the cause of) Allah, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly."

Are you suggesting then that the WOT is a one sided affair? Then what IS the WOT, just a huge army confronting a few publicity hounds? A war is a war is a war, it takes two or more parties. One party does not have an army and engages in the brutal tactics of targeting civilians specifically as its means of combat, besides currently targeting the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the people in Iraq sympathetic to the American cause. This is why its 'terror' and not regular army to army combat. This IS the War on Terror, the reason we have a war on terror and not just a WAR. Correct?

Iraq is not a regular war either. We decided to, in Bush's famous and terribly transparent condemnation- 'take the war on terror there in order for it not to fight it here', no matter that not a single Iraqi has ever been implicated in terrorist attacks against the US. This was a clear example of the 'us and them, or 'those people' mentality, their lives being less important than ours, or British or westerners. Iraqis have never been known for fundamentalism, a quiet people under a brutal dictator supported by the US for decades, and thoroughly expendable to save ourselves. Understandably, that is his job.

I tragically suspect (and know that it will cause much anger here when I say it), that when it was heard that our President and Tony Blair considered Iraqi lives to be expendable rather than american lives or british lives in a war that was directed towards us initially and somehow transfered to their country for the sake of protection, that others also felt our (innocents) lives were no less important than theirs.

I realize that we have a deep feeling for the loss which occurred in London today, a tragedy which our world is going to have to face more and more as this 'war' escalates. However, it is a feeling which has been sorely absent in this western world over the deaths of thousands of Iraqis whom have been considered mere collateral damage in our ideology of spreading freedom and democracy to the Middle East. I am positive that 'those' people love their family members in the same way we do.
I think we are becomming guilty of seeing middle easterners, any middle easterners as 'them' and therefore open game, not caring about their sufferings, but when its 'us' as in westerners, we are insensed that anyone would dare either fight us, or fight back. Im not being partisan here, I say this more as a philosophical point, I certainely dont condone the mass murder of innocents, by anyone.

I see today, by what people are saying today,( like Lord Helmet who wants to possibly nuke Iran, while calling 'others 'fanatics?') a terrible escalation of events that can only lead to a situation much like Isreal and Palestine or England and Northern Ireland. We shall have decades of retaliations back and forth, more escalation of hatred, so many wrongs done by both sides until one day we have killed enough people and are so sick of the fighting that we just get tired and broker a peace. So, if a brokered peace is inevitable far in the future, why not cut to the chase and start now instead of going through all the suffering in the meantime?

Why isnt ALL the war, all the innocents killed and maimed a tragedy, not just the deaths of 'our people'?

You cant kill all the terrorists, like you cant kill the whole US or British army. We and they will just make a bigger and bigger mess of it, whilst the arms seller gets richer.

I am truly sad for what happened in London today, in more ways than one. I am deeply sorrowed by the state of the world today. Its as tragic a day as WTC, however pain of loss and war is not exclusive to the western world and I believe the quicker we are to realize this the better off we could be.

Since Al-Queda was at war with us prior to our invasion of Iraq, does anyone remember 9/11?, I suspect there would have been terrorist attacks regardless of whether or not we invaded Iraq. Don't you?

Were the lives of Saddam's victims, past and future if we had not stepped in, worth anything?

Yes, we could stop the attacks against us today. I ain't ready to get on my knees five times a day yet.

In another thread lordhelmet wrote:




I don't like absolutes. I don't like it when people have their patriotism challenged because they don't share the same party as the president.

I don't like it when someone says to leave petty politics behind but in the same breath names only Democrats as the one practicing petty politics.

I don't like presidents who are too arrogant, too insulated and too blind to own up to the errors made in a occupation that has cost billons of dollars, thousands of lives and damaged our world standing, but instead repeats the same discredited lines in a feeble attempt to shore up support for a successful war and a failed peace.

I don't like a president whose vice-president says the insurgency is over, whose Secretary of Defense says we may be stuck there for another decade and himself says nothing at all about the discrepancy.

And I definitely don't like it when that president sends American troops to other countries based on a combination of crap evidence, enriching campaign contributors and a personal vendetta.

Are you in or out??

Out. And it wasn't much of a choice because it's more important to be right than to look tough.

It's not as easy as you think to track down funding for terrorist organizations. A lot of funding is sent through the Hawala system. Hawala provides a fast and cost-effective method for worldwide remittance of money or value, particularly for persons who may be outside the reach of the traditional financial sector. In some nations hawala is illegal, in others the activity is considered a part of the “gray” economy. It is therefore difficult to accurately measure the total volume of financial activity associated with the system, however, it is estimated that the figures are in the tens of billions of dollars, at a minimum. cite Their are multiple off-shoots of this system throughout the world and it's not likely we'll be able just "follow a paper trail."




Can any of you give me the number of terrorists we must kill in order to "kill all the terrorists?" Can you tell me how many terrorists were killed or captured last month and how many were recruited? Is the number killed more than the number recruited? How many Al-Qaeda members were their prior to our war in Iraq? How are we measuring success against Al-Qaeda? Do the number of bombings in Iraq and around the world decrease as we continue to kill terrorists? What goals have we achieved in fighting the war on terror? Once we've killed all the terrorists will the driving force for terrorism be eliminated thus ensuring their wont be a new generation of terrorists?


What leads you to believe that muslim extremists view Muhammed as a violent and barbaric teacher? Or is that the way you view him? If you want to look through the eyes of Muslim fundamentalists, you'll see a strong devotion to their religion. If you look through the eyes of a Muslim fundamentalist, you'll see your religion under attack. And you'll see someone who is willing to defend their religion and go to war for it. Are we really at war with Islam? Are we purposely oppressing Muslims? Are we trying to destroy their way of life? I don't think so and I hope not, but they do. And with our current policies, it's a reasonable assumption. Those who blow themselves up are not attacking "who or what we are" they're attacking "what we're doing." Islam has much much less to do with this than most of you think.





Since when is changing policies surrendering? The fact of the matter is, the terrorist attacks only started after the above policies (arguably a few others) were enacted by the US. We've always been a democracy, we've always been mainly Christian, we've always been secular. Again, they're not attacking us for who we are but what we're doing.


Would you label the japanese kamikaze pilots the same way? Just curious.



Saddam mostly came to power by killing everyone who opposed him. By the time he was in power at least 450 of Iraq's most prominent men were dead. They included members of the Ba'ath party, union leaders, financiers, army officers, lawyers, judges, journalists, editors, professors, religious leaders, and leaders of most of the smaller parties and ethnic groups. Iraq was divided mostly between ethnic lines, Sunni vs. Shi'ite and Arab vs. Kurd. Once in power, Saddam held on to power by a.) killing everyone and b.) unifying Iraqis through nationalism. He then began to modernize Iraq through oil revenues in the 70s. Poverty and terrorism is discussed here.

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere?
Review our current US policies in the Middle East, specifically:

1.) US support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall.
2.) The deployment of US and allied troops in the Arabian Peninsula
3.) US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan
4.) US support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
5.) US pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
6.) US support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments.

Agree with them or not, that's what we need to re-evaluate and then accept whatever consequences may come with them. Until then, we're just going to have more of the same and the only thing that will change will be the city that got hit.

True Islam does not, but fundamentalist Islam sure as heck does. Ted Bundy was a decent guy 98% of the time. Are the poor Muslims being oppressed throughout the globe, or are fundies insane enough to see oppression everywhere they live. You see, we are not the only one's "persecuting" the poor Islamic fundies. The Indonesians are, the Hindus are, the Philipinos are, the Christians in Lebanon are, the Russians are, the Jews are, heck even the Dutch are. Did that film of Van Gogh's justify his murder in the Netherlands? Do you defend abortion clinic bombers like you do Islamic fundamentalists, in the eyes of the clinic bomber he is doing God's work? There is one big difference, the number of terrorist acts committed by Christian fundies can be counted on your fingers and toes. Christian nations have been through the enlightenment, Islamic nations have not.

Please Hugo. Most Islamic fundamentalist terrorists (before we got involved) came from Saudi, an extremist monarchic opressive government supported by the US. A government that cuts off peoples heads in a public square and until recently cut off arms and legs there as well, but now its done by doctors after rag tag court conclusions.

Bin Laden is against the Haus of Saud, in fact his own familial ties, and hence against us, as are so many with definate correct thinking in their conclusions. WE SHOULD BE AGINST THE HAUS OF SAUD as well, if we were in the least loyal to our alleged beliefs. We supported Bin Laden against the Soviets in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein against Iran, both turned against us because we used, armed and dropped them and then they became enemy number one. Is it not strange or unusual that we are now fighting that which we created and supported but considered over and done with? Are they 'suddenly' less than human now, or were they already less than human when we used their services?

Muhammed is no less a barbarian than the Jewish god Jehovah. People who speak of this do not know of the barbarities spoken of in the King James Bible, where rape, murder and war are condonned under many circumnstances. I have to agree with Psyclist here, religion is the excuse, not nearly the cause.

There is a faction of extremism happening with us as this WOT escalates. It is seen by our views that these people are not human, yet they are human enough to consider their cause enough to die for, and THAT is human. They are not doing it for publicity. They feel their cause is justified enough to blow themselves and others up for. Much like a soldier in the US army who considers his life expendable for our cause. Yet our cause seems to be the spread of freedom and democracy, vague terms, theirs is defending their resources and way of life, solid terms.
We need to look at why these people are so desperate and why we are the cause of their desperation. Is it worth it? Can we STOP. Are the problems we have irreconcilable at this point? Because they will not be at a later time after much more death.

[QUOTE] Who did this terrible deed? [/QUOTE]
Personally I believe that a group affiliated with Hizboallah (affiliated with Iran). What we have set up in the Middle East is a major geopolitical game of epic proportions. What if these attacks in London were to have the same affect as the attacks in Madrid a year ago, where government policies completely shift. What if this attack causes Great Britain to pull its troops from Iraq causing a major blow to the Coalition Forces based in Iraq. Its not to far fetched for us to claim that Iran wants to see an Iraq in its own image...a sort of sister state that they can escape to if things in Iran were to boil over with reformists. Now with that said, I just wanted to say that I acknowledge that Al-Qaeda of Europe has claimed the attacks already, but even though Al-Qaeda and Iranian politics differ vastly...it wouldn't be the first time Iran has cooperated with Al-Qaeda.

[QUOTE] Why did they do this? [/QUOTE]
Why wouldn't they do this? As we saw in Spain...if support for military action in Iraq (and yes Iraq) isn't very strong an attack of that scale could easily tip things in the favor of those that would like to see British troops come home.

[QUOTE] Why London? [QUOTE]
Well beyond Great Britain being the second largest ally of the United States in Iraq (after the Iraqi Government) it would make sense for the "terrorists" to target British to claim that if they were able to bring the war to their soil they can easily take the war to their shores. The entire thing has been set up so as to destroy the will of the British people in Tony Blair and the Labor Party...to destroy support for his war.

[QUOTE] Why the transit system? [/QUOTE]
As learned from Madrid and Moscow, hitting a nation in soft targets can be more powerful and much more devastating. In this scenario, no one is safe...everybody is a target.

[QUOTE] Why now? [/QUOTE]
With all G8 nations in Scotland, it would draw attention of all the rich powers of the world that if they support this war (which many do) that they are also targets of such attacks. For example...although the attacks were in Great Britain...how could this influence Japanese politics and economics for that matter. If we were to say a similar attack were to happen to Tokyo (a city of 12.3 million), the shut down of mass transit of the city could be devastating to the economy of Tokyo as well Japan overall. Now those nations involved in Iraq are now prime targets...it has become a game of intimidation.

[QUOTE] What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere? [/QUOTE]
Terrorism thrives on the logic of being spontaneous. There is nothing we can do but allow it not to bother us...the more that we react to terrorism the more terrorism has taken the offensive. All we can do is be vigilante (like Secretary Chertoff told us this morning on his briefing on the attacks in London) and face the morning rush to work...and live on.

The Mainstream Version

Who did this terrible deed?

Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, or some other fundamentalist Islamic organization.

Why did they do this?

Because of Britain's support of the US in relation to our Israeli policy, our support of despotic regimes such as the House of Saud, our military bases in the Arabian peninsula, our illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and our request to "Bring it on".

Why London?

It is the capital and financial center of the UK.

Why the transit system?

Soft target, good potential for casualties.

Why now?

Why not? Possible link to the G8 summit, but possibly not. More likely, the players and resources were in place and acted.

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere?

Increase security, go after terrorist targets rather than secular countries in the Middle East that we don't happen to like, and - most importantly - address some of the root causes of terrorism such as poverty, despotism, and the real grievances that fundamentalist Islamic organizations have against the US and our allies.

The Tin-foil Hat Version

Who did this terrible deed?

The CIA, the NSA, or some other black ops organization answering directly to the Bush administration.

Why did they do this?

To bump Karl Rove from the front pages and things like global warming and poverty programs from the G8 agenda, and to increase support for the so-called "War on Terror".

Why London?

It is the capital and financial center of the UK.

Why the transit system?

Soft target, good potential for casualties.

Why now?

Because of the G8 summit and potentially embarrassing domestic news.

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere?

Regime change in America.


In other words, this is all pure and rampant speculation. But, hey - that hasn't stopped anyone else.

Who did this terrible deed?

Nobody really knows, but the knee-jerk conclusion is AQ, just as ME terrorists were blamed for the Oklahoma bombing until further information came out. It's just too early to say for sure, but who else could it be?

After all, an AQ website has claimed responsibility. Um, that's hardly convincing evidence.

The G8 has a lot of protesters, could be them. Maybe the UK has extremist political types other than AQ? Don't know. So for now, until investigations bring in facts, I'll just go with the flow and speculate, like everyone else, that AQ was the culprit. But then, there's Oklahoma . . .

Why did they do this?

Suicide bombers would have done it from brain washing, but until this is determined, any answer is based on the first question's speculation. Bombs can be planted with timers or remote detonators, and if this was the case, the AQ assumption isn't so obvious.

What other forces in the world might consider scaring Londoners?

Why London?

Can't be answered until the first question gets answered.

Why the transit system?

Same as above.

Why now?

Same as above.

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere?

First we have to understand what this is and what it is not. Remember the mailbox bombings in the US? It was just a kid looking for glory. We still don't know who did the anthrax attacks or why. Enough odd terrorism has happened that keeps me from going solidly with AQ until investigations happen.

Generally, greater vigilance and policing is the answer to any non-military attack. If this can be tied to an ME country, and this turns out to be Saudi Arabia, who knows. I'd be for economic punishments via the World Court, with redistributions to the victims of the attack and their families. Make terrorism economically painful on terrorist supporters and a lotto win for the victims.

So they can blow me up and get their imaginary virgins in heaven, but my kids and immediate family get filthy rich out of the sponsor's coffers. Hey, they could even hire the sponsor as a domestic servant! Go fetch me a beer, Prince.

Was that a ghost who just rolled on the floor laughing his butt off?

Apologies and sympathies to the people affected for getting into black humor. It's my way of dealing with crap.

The "they" you refer to being British humans on their way to work...

As if what you so sickeningly assert above would make the slightest moral difference, even if true, I wonder if you would be so cavalier if someone you casually liked or even dearly loved were vaporized while sitting bored and yet comfortable in an air conditioned room at work?

I want to thank you for posting your thoughts publically! I always appreciate it when potential dangers are clearly identified.

Who did this terrible deed?

Murderers.

Why did they do this?

Not known. Murderers not positively identified and/or questioned.

Why London?

Not known. Murderers not positively identified and/or questioned.

Why the transit system?

See above and feel free to guess.

Why now?

See above, feel free to guess, and then assert if ye dare.

What can be done to stop this from happening elsewhere?

Kill murderers!

This issue about Spain has gone way too far in too many posts. We were LUCKY that Spain was involved for the time it was. 90% of the Spanish public was against the Iraq war from the start but the right wing government went against the will of the people to support the US. Spain is a democracy, whether the US likes it or not. They did not believe in the war against Iraq and protested against it to the tune of tens of thousands.

Jose Maria Aznar -President -was a member of the Franco-ist fascist party. He was elected after 18 years of liberal party politics in Spain which had become corrupt. He did not have solid public support to begin with. A few days before elections Madrid experienced a train terrorist attack. Aznars government tried to blame the Basques and lied to the people of Spain about who was at fault. It was a cover up the Spanish people would not accept and the government was ousted, but its very possible they would have been ousted anyway.

Bush used the word 'cowardice' in public when asked about Spains possible withdrawl from the Iraq war early on in negotiations which did not help his cause in the least. The new Spanish government retracted Spains support from the Iraq war, to live in peace, not engaged in Americas 'spreading of' ideologies.

Truthfully, they had their own terrorist problems for decades and the US had no concern for them at any time, shape or form.
Another example of the 'us and them' mentality.
Spain is not indebted to us for anything and may they live in peace as they have chosen, much like the rest of the world who never believed in our bombing people into democracy and forcing freedom on them at gunpoint or the totally bogus WMD.
They participated in the Gulf War, the Bosnian crisis, and Spanish troops are still working hard with their colleagues from other countries in Afghanistan, but they never correlated the war in Iraq with the war on terror, as many of us did not.

Of course not. The people you mentioned weren't "conservative". They were radicals who have a lot in common with the Islamists who bombed London. Calling McVeigh a "conservative" is a lot like calling Bush a "Nazi". It's devoid of fact, the truth, and any historical perspective. McVeigh wasn't a "conservative" any more than Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan were "liberals".



But it's already starting. Here was an example from the UK's left side of the aisle...

George Galloway

We've already heard the democrats I mentioned beating the drum for several years that "America isn't safer" because we invaded Iraq. Do you really think they would change their tune if bombs exploded here? If, god forbid, it does happen here and when the politicians I mentioned behave in their completely predictably way, would you rescind your remark above?

There is a prior history to back up my assertion.

Ten minutes after 9/11, the ultra-partisans in the democrat party were already at it.

Bush, they claimed was "hiding" because he didn't return immediately to Washington. Next, he "knew" about the attack in advance. This line of insanity was presented by Hillary Clinton and also by Howard Dean, not just Cynthia McKinney of George.

With respect to the Saudi Arabia and Israel angle that I predicted as the likely response from the left, just read some of the other posts in this very same discussion topic from self-proclaimed members of the democrat party. There is the answer. The bombing were because of "US support for Israel", "Our ties with Saudi Arabia", and the "Palestinian issue". All utter nonsense.

I don't understand how you can deny the obvious.

I'm with you that being part of the solution is much better than being the problem. The problem is the denial of the nature of the enemy that we (and the people of the UK and elsewhere) face. They are not reacting out of some patriotic urge that is designed to expel the "crusaders" from the West. No. They are motivated by blind hate, an extremist view of a religion, and have no interest in compromise or in some sort of a fair settlement. They want the west defeated in totality. They want it replaced with a fundamentalist totalitarian Islamist state. What liberals don't understand is that this issue is not about "Palestine". Anyone who has any knowledge of the history of the Palestinian people knows that they are just pawns in this current game; they were murdered by the truckloads by Egyptians and Jordanians in the past when they sought their "homeland" in areas occupied by those two countries.

What people who follow Bin Laden (and other fanatics) hate is our freedom, our acceptance of the equality of women, our openness, our secularism, our art, our music, our culture... EVERYTHING.

This isn't a war that will end if we "just stop supporting Israel" or somehow punish one of the few friends we have in that region; Saudi Arabia. The source for the war is far deeper and therefore the strategy for fighting this war must be far broader than "putting 100,000 troops into Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden" as the strategically inept, and utterly foolish John Kerry said last year during his presidential campaign.

We must attack the head of the snake and that is the philosophy that motivates these people. We must use all of our methods of persuasion, coercion, propaganda, and media savvy to convince young people that radical Islam is something that should end up on the scrap heap of history. AT the same time, we must confront and destroy the individuals that have already been lost to that false religion.

That's the situation that we and the UK face. My post wasn't petty politics. I just pointed out the petty politics that dominate the party of no ideas in the USA.

This is exactly the problem I have with Spain. They are part of the Western culture that has been targeted by the Islamist radicals. They are just as much targets as we are. Yet, they wish to "live in peace". Well, so do we. But, why should we respect those who would happily accept the END RESULT OF AMERICAN SACRIFICE, which will be the defeat of those who threaten us, and ALL the western countries, yet refuse to PULL THEIR OWN WEIGHT? The US, yet again, has to do the heavy lifting to protect the western world from a problem that threatens all of them.

This isolationist view is unacceptable. It's been going on since the end of WWII when the US essentially provided security for all of Europe in the face of Soviet expansionist aims. It's easy to spend tons on social programs, denigrate the military, and poo-poo the war on terror when one is protected by the US military and free due to blood spilled by Americans. The war on terror is about spreading ideology. Our ideology is an alternative to the one that the terrorists are promoted where women can be executed for having sex out of marriage and that tolerates brutal oppression of everyone.

Spain did display cowardice after they were bombed by the terrorists. There are no two ways about it. And the mentality that they (and the French) display which is, "this is not our war, leave us out of it", is based on the false premise that they aren't the targets long-term. Sure they want to "live in peace". So do Americans. But freedom isn't free and it's about time that our European allies (beyond the brave UK, Italy, Poles, and a few others) start paying a price that is proportional to the benefits that they have been receiving.

You seem to be bringing up a Catch-22 situation. You state you cannot have stability without reducing poverty. The problem is you can't address poverty in an unstable environment. Even if by some lucky chance you found a third-world farmer with a work ethic why would he plant a field if he knows his land could be siezed arbitrarily ?(Thanks to our USSC us Americans are now in the same boat) The fact is stability has to come first. The fact is the eventual governments in Afghanistan and Iraq will almost certainly have to be more authoritarian than our Western governments today. It was only 60 years ago that Japanese-Americans were interned, similar authoritarian actions are going to have to be taken in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There seems to be a lot of statements about this being off topic, but if what we really need in order to stop future attacks, is (like Hugo states) to implant long lasting anti-terrorist governments in Iraq and Afghanistan then actually we are on topic.

Anyways, on to the refutation. The farmer would work hard, because the alternative would be death by starvation. There is a chance somebody will come along and take his land or his produce arbitrarily (though generally what happens is he is driven off his land, and turned in refugee), and that he will die anyway, but if he refuses to work, then his death is certain.

Onto to the main point, which is (due to our occupation) we can ensure (and are ensuring) through military force that the current Iraqi government does not get overthrown. What we ought to do now, is use a decent amount of the money we are throwing into Iraq, for purpose of constructing an economic infrastructure.

What disgusts me is the apparent lack of respect for the victims of this heinous crime by some in this thread. Instead of addressing the issue at hand, the choice has been made to use this tragedy into a diatribe on the Bush administration or the lack of attention for the plights of others. As horrible as third-world poverty is, this isn't about that, so if we could get off that subject and show a minute amount of revrence for the victims here, that would be nice.

Don't take me the wrong way, this is a terrible event. But compared to the worlds other problems, it is nothing. However, significance is off topic, as it wasn't in this threads main question...

The "they" you refer to being British humans on their way to work...

As if what you so sickeningly assert above would make the slightest moral difference, even if true, I wonder if you would be so cavalier if someone you casually liked or even dearly loved were vaporized while sitting bored and yet comfortable in an air conditioned room at work?

Your misconstruing that argument. Hugo was stating the third worlders were lazy, and after stating the gist of sweatshop worker conditions, I gave him a comparison of what those British had to look forward to.

Well, the target is not precisely the entire Western world, is it? Switzerland has not yet come under attack. It seems rather likely that Britain's aggressive role in support of the U.S. invasion of Iraq was the pretext for this particular attack.



London is, precisely, a war zone. So is New York City; so is Washington, D.C.; so is every patch of ground upon which a U.S. or British citizen walks in this world, so long as we are engaged in this war. Our enemies do not honor our "linguistic and moral definition" (to quote another correspondent here) of war. War is war. Terrorism is war waged by certain means, and it is essentially the only means of waging war if you lack military forces. There is nothing to be gained by reciting legalistic definitions; spouting notions of honor; moral posturing.



Neither cowardice nor courage has anything to do with it. It is war, and like all wars, it is being waged for definite purposes. U.S. foreign policy is precisely relevant to this discussion because it is the ensemble of U.S. Middle Eastern policy that has caused us to be attacked, and to preserve which, presumably, we are fighting. As I observed earlier, it lies within our power significantly to modify this policy, and thus to make peace with this particular set of enemies.

Peace for Britian is even simpler to achieve. Britian merely needs to repudiate Blair and disassociate itself from the U.S. war effort. I rather strongly suspect that that would guarantee no further attacks of this kind against Britain.



So do I. But it was a singular example of puerile bravado. And it expresses a stunning lack of understanding of the nature of the struggle. I am certain that it was quoted by our enemies in their recruitment efforts.



There is another thread for expressing one's respect for these people. This one is about why the attacks occurred and what can be done to prevent them.



It is a category mistake to attempt to "eliminate terror." Terror is not an object against which one can fight, it is a means of waging war. It can no more be eliminated than aerial bombardment can be eliminated. There are certain means of defending against it, just as there are certain means of defending against aerial bombardment. But there properly is no such thing as a "War on Terror."

Permit me also to express my strong doubt that our military involvement in the Middle East is serving to defend us from terrorist attacks. I think, on the contrary, that our military involvement there (and our unconditional support of Israel's presence there, which is essentially a highly aggressive, military presence) has caused this war, and that the war will end only when our military involvement there ends.

On September 11, 2001, 19 terrorists, in a sophisticated, well-planned attack, crash planes in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington DC and kill 3000 people and forever change the skyline of America's financial capital.

Bush and Blair launch a "war on terror" and kill or capture thousands of like-minded individuals, forcing democracy at the point of a gun on 2 Muslim countries, effectively preventing them from institutionalizing the radical Islam which fostered these attacks.

Al-Qaeda has now had 4 years to train and plan more attacks. Our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have supposedly "increased recruiting" for the terrorists.

Despite this, the best Al-Qaeda can do in 4 years is 2 bombings of train stations in Europe, killing dozens rather than thousands.

And this is a "failure." Therefore, we should get out of the Middle East, sacrifice Israel, give the terrorists everything that they want.

I'm not questioning anyone's patriotism here. What I'm questioning is your logic and frankly some of your sanity. The defeatism is the most Orwellian doublespeak I've ever heard. We kill and capture terrorists and it's a "failure." We give prisoners of war orange chicken and Korans and we are "torturers" à la the Spanish Inquisition. We liberate a nation from a dictator and it's a "quagmire." Muslim terrorists continue to attack the West (as they've done for 20+ years) and it's "our fault for invading Iraq." London is attacked and it's a CIA plot to get Karl Rove off the front page.

I respect and will continue to defend everyone's right to dissent, but some of you people have got to see the light at some point, or our liberty is really and truly in jeopardy.