Redstate

Calls them terrorists attacks.
-bro

The obvious action - but also adds that the G8 meetings will continue, and he will return. "each of the countries around that table have some experience with the effects of terrorism"

"It's particularly barbaric that this has happened on a day when people are meeting to help the problems of poverty in Africa"

Blair impresses me.  I believe the Brits can rest assured that they are in good hands.
-bro

Is claiming there are certain Al-Qaeda affiliated websites that are claiming the attacks, and threatening others later.
-bro

ABC reporting that Al Queda al Jihad is claiming responsibility for the attacks.

I just don't have any words for this right now.  

All that comes to mind for now is God help them.

About the scope of the impact this will have on the G8.  Africa to the back, terrorism to the front.  Leaders in close contact may be able to acquire a high degree of committment from fellow leaders that wouldn't have been possible otherwise.  This will be an odd conference.
-bro

this is what matters most-

"Whatever they do it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and other civilized nations throughout the world," Blair said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050707/ap_on_re_eu/g8

Have any information regarding security in NY, DC etc?  Besides the normal 'stepping up' I haven't been able to gather much.
-bro

Right now - united, all have felt effects of terrorism - an attack on civilized people everywhere. We will not allow violence to chance our societies or our value, nor allow it to stop the work of this summit.

Are we all British now?

Offers condolensces.

In touch with Homeland Security.  Be extra vigilant.

The War on Terror goes on.  We'll spread an ideology of hope and compassion that overshadows thier idea of hate.

...of any notions that anyone had that Afghanistan was the only necessary front in the war on terror, that al Qaeda can be dealt with carefully without cracking a few sovereign despot eggs, and that the United States is the only nation that needs to fight (not a slight to the inestimable support the British have provided thus far, obviously, but more pointed at the nincompoops in all Western nations who call for troop withdrawal from [insert sandy nation here]).

The terrorists, again, in an arrogantly stupid calculation, have struck one of the nations that, when punched, doesn't politely request that the offender kindly stop while looking in the mirror wondering why they forced the offender to hit them, but rather sends a covert team of highly-trained operators to eliminate the offender, violently, and remove all evidence that he ever existed.

The Brits, for all my Irish resentment, are damned good at "getting back." Cold, calculating, and a history of subduing other people through whatever means necessary. Given proper motivation... I think this is it...

But that's too deep into the City of Man...  I'm struggling to stay afloat...

May God bless and keep those who were injured and killed, provide His grace for wise judgment and proportional action to leaders charged with defense, and grant the grace of charity and conversion to those who perpetrated these grave offenses and all those who look on them with approval.

Local radio was full of reports this morning that security had been increased on the Metro, with additional uniformed personnel, some carrying automatic weapons, heavy signage, etc.

From wmata.gov:

"We are taking precautionary measures to assure our customers that we are doing everything thta we can to make sure that they can use our system without incident," said Metro Transit Police Chief Polly Hanson. "Our customers are likely to see our special response teams of officers carrying additional weaponry with a canine accompanying them. We also are asking our customers to be an extension of our eyes and ears, and let us know if they see anything unusual."

Metro Transit Police have deployed the special response teams and explosive detection canine teams to conduct sweeps of Metrorail stations and trains and buses. Metrorail station restrooms have been temporarily closed for security reasons.

"The presence of our special response teams and explosive detection canine teams does not indicate any specific, impending danger," Chief Hanson explained. "These are precautionary measures intended to add another layer of security protection."

Neither I nor an officemate saw any evidence of the additional security this morning, though. Unless out-of-order escalators count.

Whatever you need, you got it.

In a few minutes that the death toll is now over 40, 200 seriously wounded, over 1,000 wounded.

hope that it won't go up, but we know it probably will.

take on step closer to the abyss. Unfortunately, I fear today's fundementalist terrorist fail to recognize American's don't become affraid to the point of non-reaction.

It would be ashame to see that civilization deteoriate to the point where they risk there very existence for the sake of fundementalism, not even a true interpretation.

Is it that we just have this genetically inserted when born? The "Kill those that don't believe with us" point of view? If ever someone wanted to make sure the American and "coalition of the willing" people stay in the fight, this was the way to do it. Bush has his talking point now confirmed and support will now grow.

I have cross-posted the remarks I posted on my blog this morning.

-

There is nothing that I can report about this tragedy that has not already been reported. There is nothing I can analyze about these events that have not already been analyzed. For the better part of this morning, I had made up my mind not to make any post whatsoever regarding these attacks.

There was nothing, I thought, that needed to be said that had not been said already by not only the visuals of the carnage, but by the words of those who survived this barbaric attack.

I've changed my mind. There is but one thing that I think ought to be said, on behalf of myself and, if I may, on behalf of my country.

To the brave people of Great Britain, and London in particular: We've been where you are today not too long ago ourselves, and we live every day with the possibility, with the thought in the backs of our minds, that we may be there again.

As you so graciously did when our country was attacked nearly four years ago, let me say that, indeed, we are all Britons now.

I extend the condolences of myself and my family to the victims of this attack as well as to all the people of Great Britain. May God bless your great nation.

An incredible gamble by the terrorists.  Do they really think the Brits will react like France or Spain?  What evidence is there of that?  I wouldn't be surprised if the Brits send an extra 25 or 50 thousand troops to Iraq, not to mention "unreported" activity.

Any bets on who the first lefty will be to say that this proves we should get out of Iraq?  I predict either Kucinich or Boxer.

Married to an American. I was in NY Sep 11th and am about to move our family back home to the UK, where I am rihgt now looking at houses. I was proud that Britain (and, let's face it, in terms of actually useful amounts of soldiers and weaponry, as opposed to token support, only Britain) supported the US in the WoT.

I want to thank you guys, Erick and all, for putting the Union Jack up on RedState today. It makes me want to cry to see the Americans care.

Thank you.

God Save the Queen.

Well, (a) we don't know who did this. Let's just assume it was al Qaida to help your point as much as possible. (b) This could have been planned anywhere, but was almost certainly not planned in Iraq. Probably Afghanistan, Pakistan, or the UK itself? Any dispute with that (c) What this really tells us is that we've got to go deeper, perhaps, and not broader with our anti-terrorism tactics. The question is how to do that?

My wife and I know several people with connections in the UK.  It's a real tragedy that you are experiencing, and we Americans are with you.  Your nation has been with us in the Global War on Terrorism, and we don't forget who our friends are.

May God bless the UK and the USA!  May the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes fly together and rally the West against these Muslim scum!

let's be clear - we don't know who did this - yet. And while it's most likely islamist terrorism, the phrase "muslim scum" has got no place here.

Especially the bit about "Muslim scum." Those who did it are assuredly scum, and may very well be Muslim; but the combination of those words means something different than one would assume when they are separate.

I awoke this morning to this horrific news, half a world away, and I am still coming to grips with it as everyone here is struggling to do.  Yesterday I had pledged to myself that after a recent spate of increasingly intemperate flame wars that it was best to opt myself out of discussions for a while, as a service to both myself and RedState, but this news has brought me back today, to make this comment:

The people responsible for planning and executing this massacre in the subways and on the streets of London are mass murderers and the enemies of civilization across the face of the earth.  The atrocities today fall directly in line with the thousands of other acts of barbarism they have committed around the world, not just since 9/11, but predating 9/11 by at least several years, and the motives and methods are always the same:  instill terror, destroy innocent life, demoralize free people, shake the foundations of Western societies and undermine the global economic system in an attempt to push it into chaos, and finally to break our will, shatter our resolve, and force us to capitulate.  Through their actions, they also work to prevent their own people from ever realizing the dream of living in free societies with democratically elected leaders, under the rule of law, as members of the community of free nations.

They are the enemy and on this point we need to be absolutely clear.  They are not to be appeased, they are not to be excused, they are not to be pitied or rationalized or explained.

I just got back from reading the DKos open thread on this attack, and aside from the usual spate of theories about "wag the dog" and the usual cadre of blame-America-firsters, it's particularly striking that the word "enemy" shows up only once in more than 500 posts in the thread, and then only in a very limited sense - that bin Laden saw the United States as his enemy, but with the insinuation that our subsequent "irrational" overreaction to 9/11 we have prompted bin Laden and his followers to spread his hatred to other countries, who would somehow otherwise have been spared had we been more accomodating.  In other words, all civilized nations of the world should blame not Osama bin Laden, not Al Qaeda, but the United States for spreading terrorism.  Some will inevitably look for reasons to refuse to call the people committing these acts what they are, and in so doing they rationalize and even attempt justify their actions. But there can be no justification for cold-blooded murder, and there must be no capitulation to the evil which animates it.

Today I stand with the people of Great Britain and weep with sorrow for their loved ones, relatives, friends and the fellow citizens they have lost to these monstrous acts terror.  I weep also for the overwhelming majority of people in the broader Middle East who dream of the day that they too can slip the yoke of fanaticism and oppression, of hatred and war, to live as free people, to worship as they choose, in societies founded upon equal justice and the rule of law.  They are our friends, and our loved ones too, and I stand with them all.  All civilized people around the world must find the will to come together in the face of these acts of terror, recognize the enemy for what it is, and to summon the courage not to shrink from the fight.  The very foundation of our world rests upon our shoulders, and we dare not shrug.  Godspeed to all the victims of this barbarity, and to Tony Blair and the rest of the people of Great Britain and London I affirm my solidarity, support, resolve, and inifite sympathy.

Look, the Brits will do nothing except whine about Bush some more. That's just reality.

is four people with backpacks.  Any group of maniac third graders could have done this.  Short of frisking every person as they walk out their door, there is no realistic way to stop such unsophisticated attacks.

A free society is always vulnerable to such an attack.  And there will always be people willing to carry them out.

To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher: I pray they don't go all wobbly on us.

sounded like Free Republic talk there for a second.  

You know, I sort of promised myself I wouldn't step into any peeing matches on any topic concerning today's events, but your post is so uniquely inappropriate that I'm compelled to make an exception.

Regardless of anyone's point of view on recent foreign policy, the Brits have obviously shown themselves to be ready, willing and able to step up and deal when the chips are down.

Show some respect.

Cheers -

How do you stop such low-level attacks against a free society?  Certainly you would be the first person in history to figure it out.

They could do is curtail Muslim immigration.

And that would undermine the whole free society thing wouldn't it?

That many initially assumed that the Oklahoma City bombing was done by radial Islamic fundamentalists.

What is clear is that some terrorist group did this; I don't know enough about terrorist groups in Great Britian to know which ones would be likely suspects.

uncalled for.  The Brits have stood with the US during our time of tragedy and we will now stand with them.  

Of course some will complain, that inclination is international.  You are simply out of line with your comment though.

Hello- I'm a liberal who lurks here occasionally. This is my first post. I have every sympathy for the Brits, but I don't think they'll send extra troops to Iraq. How would that stop attacks in London?

The British have formidable skills at identifying and tracking terrorists (through their history with the IRA.) They'll put their efforts where it will do the most good.

I'm going absolutely bananas at my site with british blog commentary and updates by the minute, if you want to check it out.

and I'd say there is absolutely no chance of that.

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/07/07/1895

is located in an area of London heavily populated by Muslims, and when this gets sorted out, I suspect that Muslims will number prominently among the victims.  Virtually every Islamic group in GB has strongly condemned today's tragedy.  Given those facts, I think your comment is a bit narrow minded.

It just became the screen saver of myself and about a dozen of my co-workers.

Three days ago we as a nation celebrated our Independence.

Today we honor those who have helped us preserve that same independence and who have fought along side us to extend that same independence throughout Western and Eastern Europe and most recently in Afghanistan and Iraq.

God Save the Queen indeed.

There is also:

• Britian
• US
• Spain
• Who ever is next
• Pakistan (which has been perpetually teetering on the brink of anarchy and has nuclear weapons),
• Saudi Arabia (bin Ladin is a Saudi, and he still has a lot of support (moral and financial) there)
• Indonesia (lots of al Quaeda linked activity there)
• Syria
• Iraq (post invasion, now that it has descended into chaos)

Saddam had no links to al Quaeda. The only al Quaeda activity in Iraq was along the boundry between the Kurdish controlled north and the Saddam controlled region. The area where no one had strict control.

Saddam was a nasty dictator, but he was a secular nasty dictator who ran a police state. Terrorists need chaos to be able to hide their activities, and that just wasn't pre-invasion Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq did not make us safer from terrorism. It destabilized the region, and created new opportunities for al Quaeda to organize -- this might have been an OK tradeoff if Iraq actually did have weapons of mass distruction, but all we have found is that containment was working, and that the evidence we acted on was filtered through interested third parties (Chubai, among them) who had their own reasons for wanting us to invade.

The run up to the Iraq War was a collosal failure.

that bombed London, I fail to see the connection.  Surely we can't leave Iraq now,  but if it was Al Queda or a group closely affiliated with them, I would say it does lend credence to the idea that Iraq was a distraction from those that were/are an actual threat to free nations abroad.

Hullo

I'm an Englishman living here in the US, working in American politics.  First of all, thank you for all your kindnesses today, both at RS and all other Americans I have talked to today.

As a supporter of the Iraq war, I think I am safe in saying that I don't think it will make a difference to our troop deployment one way or the other.  Those British who oppose the war will use this as an excuse to bash Blair, those who supported him will say it must only strengthen our resolve.

Maybe others could correct me but I think I read that this is the 7th Al-Qaeda attempt since 2000(and it sounds like AQ, we don't really have any other functioning terrorist groups in the UK other than the IRA, who don't operate this way).

So hopefully we can remember that when we engage in discussions over the war in Iraq over the weekend with out liberal friends, clearly this is not a result of Blair's support for Bush.  AQ have been trying to mount an attack for at least 5 years - this is just the first time they have succeeded.  

Thanks again for all your messages of support.  God save the queen indeed.

Do we need to bring this back to Iraq or whatever else is going on politically.  Let us, as a global community, mourn for the victims, find who perpetrated this action, and then react.  The people who did this will be caught and punished rest assured, but not by pundits.  Take a deep breath...

those groups condemned 9-11, too. Even groups that have been closed down as front groups for terrorist organizations.

the Flickr site but here's a direct link to the London photos.  Hat tip to a commenter at Europhobia.

and blurbs at Wikipedia.  Same hat tip as above.

For today, I am.  

My condolences to my friends across the ocean.  As you stood with us on 9-11, so shall we stand with you on 07-07.  

This was a very organized attack in a nation that has alot more experience with Terrorism than we do. This took alot of coordination and planning, and as of now it seems there was no clue (or none acted on) by western intelligence.  

  This shows an enemy that is not only NOT weakened, but maybe even stronger than they were on September 11th.  

  Is there any other way to see this?

but you obviously choose not to.

"We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old."

Source:  http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111chur.html

to know whether or not any of the groups that today condemned the London attacks are fronts but I would be very surprised if all Islamic groups and institutions in GB have not been under some rather focused scrutiny since 9/11.  I would hope that any that were found to be fronts, fundraisers, etc., would be history by now.

The point remains, though, that the kinds of people who perpetrate these horrific acts represent a very small minority of the Muslim population, at least in GB.

I have heard that the British had been planning to withdraw troops from Iraq, some of which will be redeployed in Afghanistan to reinforce NATO troops there.  If the terrorists knew about that planned withdrawal, perhaps they planned to jump in front of the parade and claim they caused this withdrawal with their attacks.

In addition to counterterrorism skills, the British authorities are pioneers in the use of urban public surveillance cameras.  I hope they get some useful leads from these. It would be nice to have these vermin tracked on camera all the way back to their "safehouses".

(Crouching down on rock with clutched fist supporting my chin, deep thoughts).., If I were a person, now hunkered down in the south of Afghanistan, and I just happened to be, oh..., I don't know..., let's say Osama himself (lolol), and I was really taking some heat, and several routes out of my predicament, that I thought were going to be open are not. Hmmm, what would I do?

I'd like a diversion of some sort, several of them, one after another, day after day, just like in Iraq, to show the world we can strike back at anytime anywhere, and attempt to use it as a diversion for time.

I wouldn't go to sleep just yet. And I'd very carefully watch the rush our home today in several parts on the world, and for the next few days.

 ... coming up for air, I can't help but notice that many are trying to use today's tragedy in London to re-argue the correctness of the war in Iraq.  It's really impolite and silly -- as well as completely off-topic.  

1.  Al Qaeda (and the like) wouldn't like us any more if we did not invade Iraq.  It just wants us dead.  The same was true before the Iraq war, the same is true now.
   
2.  This attack does not prove that the Iraq war "made the world more dangerous."  The effect of the Iraq war on the war on terror is a huge question that won't be answered for a generation (at least).
   
3.  This attack does not validate or invalidate the so-called "flypaper theory."  (A theory that, FWIW, I find terminally silly and stupid, albeit for reasons that have nothing to do with today's events.  And, no, I don't want to discuss it any further, save to note my dissent from this particular talking point.)
   
4.  My support has been, and remains with, the British people.  As Thorley mentioned (above), whatever they need, we should be willing and eager to provide -- even if it's mere sympathy and respect on this dark day.  Here's to the Green and Pleasant Land (where I lived for a time).
   
5.  You will not, however, find this colonial beseeching God to save the Queen.*  (Indeed, it is a very odd thing for an American to say.)

von

*It's probably for the better.  When I hear "God save the Queen" my unconscious mind always seeks to add "/ the fascist regime / they made you a moron /...." [from the old Sex Pistol's ditty].

if the theory is correct, but the WARNING should be well taken, especially in the next 2-8 hours here in the U.S.

To our friends in Great Briton who have stood with us not only on Sept 11th 2001, but before and since. Your losses are our losses, we mourn with you at this hour. But let it be known that you can count on us whenever you might need us. We stand with you today and tomorrow.

-TS

1.  The terrorists want a British pull out of Iraq - sending any additional troops sends a very strong message that the British will not bow down to terrorists - doing nothing, or pulling out, would likely only lead to further attacks, until the British take some decisive action - if decisive action can be accomplished via covert means, more power to the British - in the words of Orrin Hatch "find out the ***tards who did it and go after them".
   
2.  Blair may not send any troops - but he must do something, and sending more troops makes a powerful statement that Britain will not be played by terrorists - of course, if one is already against the Iraq war, there would never be any good reason to send more troops.
   
3.  I can't see how the assistance that Britain is giving the U.S. could be a "distraction".  Are you really saying that because Britain has a relatively small number of troops in Iraq (Or nearly non-existent, as some contrarians have asserted) Britain was unable to see this attack coming or prevent it?  I don't see how that logically follows...Britain has no resources other than the small contingent in Iraq?  This would seem to undermine the earlier poster's assertion that Britain has great skill at identifying terrorists.  Surely the country is not defenseless - or are you saying that because Britain is in Iraq it feels impervious to terrorists?  I just don't understand this "distraction" point, in this context.

I am, after all, asking a question...

you are unclear on what constitutes a question.

This shows an enemy that is not only NOT weakened, but maybe even stronger than they were on September 11th.  

  Is there any other way to see this?

This is not a question. It is a statement followed by a rhetorical question.

I would like to thank the members of Red State for their condolences today. I was born and raised in the south-east of England and used to visit central London quite often as a child.

The area targeted today was an affluent area and a strong economic base of the UK. It reminds me of 9/11 and New York. A lot of Americans live in that area of London and if you have relatives there, i pray that they are safe. You never get used to terrorism, the IRA were always a threat growing up, but you never get used to it.

We must stand united today.

I think the mayor of London best answered your question. The Brits have seen far, far worse than this attack, and they will continue on as they have always done in the face of adversity.

The methods here are once again, pretty primitive, though effective. I don't think you can show by this incident that Al Quaeda and militant Islam is stronger than they were 4 years ago. As President Bush is fond of saying, we have to get it right 100% of the time, they only have to get it right once.

you're correct in this statement:

Those British who oppose the war will use this as an excuse to bash Blair, those who supported him will say it must only strengthen our resolve.

In my opinion this will be the fallout inside the US as well, only substitute 'Americans' for 'British' and 'Bush' for 'Blair'.

Regardless of how this turns out politically, my condolences and sympathies to the families involved as well as the British people in general.

:(

I thought it was agreed that we would mourn one day before exploiting this tradgedy for personal websites/political beliefs?

"They are the enemy"

I don't think anyone has a firm grasp of the who/what/when/why at this point. One of the problems with the WoT is a lack of understanding.

-JP2

First, I would make it a point to say that I saif if it were Al Queda or closely affiliated group.  As a side note, to me, this looks like the work of a small group trying to gain the favor of Bin Laden, as Zarqawi once was.  Which would be all but impossible to detect or prepare for if the small group did not have outside communication about what they were to do.

1.  I guess I don't see the Iraq war and the war on terror as one in the same.  And I don't think Al Queda would give a hoot if they are in Iraq or not.  In fact, I would think they are happy as heck to see our efforts focused in Iraq rather than hunting them.
   
2.  Same as above.
   
3.  Perhaps I projected us in there rather than Britian.  We are supposed to be hunting and destroying Al Queda and it's networks.  If it was Al Queda, it would serve as a reminder who the original target in the WOT was supposed to be.  It would appear to me that we are not doing what we could to accomplish this, and I would feel much better if the effort put into Iraq was/would have  been directed at those that did threaten us.

In the heat of a battle, does a soldier stop fighting to mourn a wounded or fallen comrade? Does he stop ascertaining the lay of the land and all nearby threats and what to do next?

No.

Mourning without vigilance and measured response is reserved for when the battle is over; for those who don't recognize the battle rages on.

We can mourn and let down our collective guard when fanatics who perpetrate this sort of evil are rendered unable to do so. Until then, we fight on. And continually.

There is no "global community" of which you speak. There is the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, Italy, and a few other countries in which a majority of the population and the governmental leaders understand this. The rest are either along for the ride, too weak and/or self-loathing to defend themselves, or are the festering sores from which the hateful, murderous fanatics emanate, more often than not.

There will always be those among us stricken with hate. We're human, that's in our nature. But those of us who do not hate to such a degree cannot back down, cannot let our guard down, cannot yield even an inch. To do so invites such attacks.

Mourn, yes. But keep that rifle leveled, or you will join your buddy on the floor.

I've never been a believer in the diabolical genius of the 9/11 planning.  Sitting here in Podunk, Tx I can get flight schedules from any airport in the world.  From the major ones I can even get arrival/departure lists from last year and from that compile a pretty accurate timing schedule.  I can even get security guidelines from most national transportation agencies.  I'd be willing to bet that if I looked hard enough I could find them for the world's purportedly most secure airline, El Al.  But even if I were a believer in the diabolical genius I don't think there's any way I could rank today's attacks anywhere near those of 9/11 or even 3/11 with respect to complexity or logistics.  Maybe you should explain why it is you do so.

I'd say it was some group of radicals associated with Abu Hamza al-Masri.  I've seen people talk about Iraq, Afghanistan, the Olympics, G8, but I haven't seen anyone talk about Hamza's trial which started this week.

So now the U.S. is responsible for all terrorist attacks in the world, because we could have stopped them all, if only we were not in Iraq.  That someone could actually think that is beyond my comprehension.  As to the rest, please see Von's post about rearguing the Iraq war.

Finish this setence for me...

"The other way to see this is as.."

or "I disagree with what you wrote, I see this instead as..."

or

"In my opinion..."

because all indications are you are trolling and doing so at a very amateurish level.

"This could have been planned anywhere, but was almost certainly not planned in Iraq."

Since Al Qaeda is a worldwide terrorist organization, I will go out on a limb and agree with you on that statement, but I fail to see why this thread is being used by some to paint prewar Iraq as some benign, terrorist-free place which Bush and Blair turned into Terror Central. This is not the place for that argument, but out of curiosity I would like to ask why, in your mind, Iraq is any less likely than the other nations you mentioned as a possible source of planning.  

remotely close to that Blair should send troops to Iraq to prove the terrorists wrong.  I am meerly saying why I don't think Iraq is related to the terrorist struggle.  Get what you want out of it, obviously you have a good imagination.

http://www.lnreview.co.uk/news/005167.php

"What the &$@% do you think you're doing?  This is London. We've dealt with your sort before. You don't try and pull this on us...."

Good read... Couldn't have said it better.  

We may never know how many similar attacks have been foiled by British Intel, and we may never know if British Intel thwarted any part of this attack either. That is the nature of counterterrorism. As to the enemy being stronger, reports say that the bombs were much smaller and fewer than those used in Madrid. If they had more,and bigger, bombs, as well as more terrorists, I think they would have used them.  Maybe they have to ration resources.  It seems that not only are they less strong than they were on 9/11/01, they are less strong than they were on 3/11/04.  None of which causes me to despise them any less.

To me, these attacks seem all to brutally simple.  They don't prove any sort of strength or sophistication, just a will to destroy.  This bombing could have been done by four or less people acting outside of any other group assuming one of them made the bombs.

But at some point any nation allowing unrestricted Muslim immigration will reach a critical mass of Islamic Whackjobs who, after committing murder and mayhem, are able to go to ground much more easily amongst a large and passively sympathetic Muslim population.  Said Muslim population then uses democracy to elect Imams to public office.  These Imams then begin to institute Sharia, which undermines the whole free society thing, doesn't it?      

There is some evidence that OKC was a collaboration between White supremacists and Islamic terrorists, including a former Iraqi soldier. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this were true, although Michael Moore has made belief in any conspiracy theory distasteful to me at this point.

So, are you not going to answer the question, then? Your refusal to answer leads me to believe that you actually HAVE no answer and are using your moral superiority to avoid a simple question. I honestly WOULD like to know what the conservative viewpoint on this is.

This is not to flame, but merely out of curiosity. Because, it seems to me that our current strategy for dealing with international terror doesn't seem to be working too well.

Why some conservatives wish to avoid a rational conversation on the matter is beyond me.

Eric Rudolph/Robert Chambliss/Tim McVeigh/Weather Underground

Extremists come in all shapes, colors and religions.

I'd bet our own fundamentalists would be very happy to impose Biblical law on this country also undermining the "whole free society thing".

I didn't want to go there, but I'm glad someone did.

I honestly WOULD like to know what the conservative viewpoint on this is.

We are Rove. Patience if futile. There is no conservative viewpoint. It has not been developed. We await communication from our leader. You will be shined on.

This shows an enemy that is not only NOT weakened, but maybe even stronger than they were on September 11th.

This attack shows nothing about relative strength.

At most you might infer that we've taken hugely damaging avenues such as airplane bombings away and they have to resort to smaller scale attacks.  Or that this was how they chose to spread terror this time.  Next time it could be a ship board bomb in Naples.  It's just mental masturbation to assume this sort of thing

"They are the enemy"

It doesn't matter who 'they' are.  If they are Al-Qaeda, or if they are PETA, or if they are the IOC, they need to be killed or captured.  

It doesn't take a day to know that.

You could lose a large fortune.

I am unaware of any Christian fundamentalist group in the US of more than a dozen members which wants to "undermine the "whole free society thing"." or to impose Biblical law [whatever that may be.] on the country.

Were Rudolph, Chambliss, McVeigh, suicide bombers?

No.

Well, attacking a federal building, McVeigh is almost a suicide bomber since you can't kill an Federal Law Enforcement and live to talk about it, but really....

You are comparing isolated nuttery with a religious philosophy, that advocates death as a primary means of reform.  

Get a grip.

If all Muslims were mad with bloodlust as implied, a country of over 25,000,000 people would not be occupied by 120,000 troops.

a religious philosophy, that advocates death as a primary means of reform.

You bother to differentiate Christian extremists from the mainsteam Christian culture:

Christian fundamentalist group in the US of more than a dozen members

And then to proceed to lump all Muslims into the same pile and use the worst possible examples to represent them.

a) people in Iraq are busy planning attacks in Iraq

b) the country that this was most likely to have been planned in was England.  After that, the sky's the limit.  Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, France, Germany, Italy.  All are contenders, but my money's on it being planned just down the road, probably somewhere within the M25 orbital.

The advantage of that is, it will make them a lot easier to catch than if they were hidden in a mountain somewhere.

..we've got us one of them "self hatin" Jews!

Perhaps they planned to jump in front of the parade and claim they caused this withdrawal with their attacks

Given that it was in the FT three days ago, that would have to be a mighty powerful bomb.

To be a prat? I ask only because you're remarkably successful at it, regardless of the effort. Olympic quality, in fact.

This largely substanceless comment was brought to you today to remind you to contribute something substantive, or don't comment at all. I hear the blancmanges are running fast and free this time of year. Go hunt one if you're still allowed.

She's not the one being bombed.

And well spake thee.

You're one of these "wingnuts" I keep hearing about.  It's nice to see one in its natural habitat.

It was the French, silly.  They were upset because London beat Paris to the Olympics.

You are reading too much between the lines and not enough on the lines.

"Islam is a religious philosophy that advoctes death as a primary means of reform"  

Did I write that?  No.  

I had [wrongly, I see] assumed that we all knew that Wahhabiism, a violent Islamic sect supported by the royal family of SaudiArabia, was the religious affliation of a rather large proportion of a rather extensive organisation that is dedicated to the murder of civilians of all religions in order to achieve religio-political goals.

I was merely pointing out that since the demise of the New Model Army and suppresion of the original Jusuit order there was no large organized group of persons advocating violence to bring foreward a more Christian world.

To this is apparently "yes." Good for you.

This does map out future events nicely.

I mentioned that previously.

You left out the French Farmers Union.

Anyone who's ridden the tube who's had any training in security could have told you how to pull off an attack like this.  It's ridiculously simple, and there's really not much way of preventing it.  We could put metal detectors on all the tube stations, but all that would do is deflect attacks onto other targets.  Any amateur can blow up a Burger King.

I'm confident that we won't take the route of going for hyper-visible pseudo-security and yet more curtailment of civil liberties (Blair is already trying to push for a national ID with a biometric database, and this might tip the vote in his favour, although God knows what good people think it will do), but you never know -- we might lose our minds.

But if you use events like this to wave your bare areses at the bits of the world who isn't actively shooting people in Iraq, calling them "self loathing" and other such asinine things, I think the only proper response is derision.

In case you didn't get it, incidentally, it was a quote from Family Guy.  Cracking good show, you should check it out.

When you mention the IOC in the same breath as Al Qaeda, are you suprised when people take you not-at-all seriously?  Especially when you do it in a long screed about how liberals the world over simply don't get that the nasty people with the bombs are our enemies!

As I've mentioned elsewhere, although possibly not here, there's a difference between disagreeing that something needs to be done, and disagreeing on the methods used to do it.  I'm confident that we'll do what it takes to get these people, that those we can try will be tried, and those who die "resisting arrest" will do so cleanly and with minimal blood loss by those who just so happened to be standing next to them at the time.  I'm sure that a number of operations will take place, indeed are now being planned, that we won't hear about until they are declassified in a quarter-century, and that you certainly won't hear Tony Blair talk about them in front of a flag.

It will be quiet, it will be efficient, and it will work.  We've done enough military stuff that hasn't worked against terrorists in the past to now know our stuff.  But believe me, we know who our enemies are.  It's rather silly to write a long post telling us that people with bombs on our trains hate us, isn't it?

But I find useless one-line shots at commenters by guests to be a waste of good bandwidth.

Try Crash. Seems to be more in line with your taste in pop culture.

"Sarcasm."

"Politeness."

Savor them.

This is my answer to the above question as well.

Mainstream Islamic philosophy does not advocate killing as a means of reform.  If the mainstream advocated that, we'd have a lot more than 50 dead each month in Iraq and no Westerner would be safe anywhere in the world.   From where I sit, I'm comparing nuttery with nuttery.  Obviously Al Queda and other fundy Islamists far outnumber KKK/other white hate groups/Anti Abortion extremists/left wing kooks.  But all have bombed the innocent to promote a political or religious agenda.

As for our own fundamentalists, my view of them is  different than yours.  What Falwell, Dobson, Perkins et al want is very different from the nation  we live in today.  Perhaps you'd prefer it, but I'd prefer a secular government that minimizes interference in my daily life.

I like that you tried to focus on the reality of the issue, unlike most off the previous posters who attacked me as a troll or tried to make excuses for gross incompetence .  Kudos...

  My question is...Exactly how weak would terrorists have to not be able cause this?

 Is it a question of resources or the ability to find motivated people willing to murder and destroy for vauge concepts or past humiliations?  

My refusal to answer was adequately explained if you had bothered to read it, which you didn't. I don't feed trolls.

We don't avoid rational discussion, it is just impossible to find anyone on the left to have one with.

I absolutely loved that.

But I also doubt we can ever make them that weak without gutting the political agenda that brings them money and new recruits.

We need to make the Middle East far less important to the USA.  Then, if we wish, we can ignore the whole mess and leave them to their own devices.  It takes two sides to fight.

Al Qaeda isn't attacking us because "they hate our freedom".  They hate us for having troops on their soil (as we have had in Saudi since GWI) and for backing despotic regimes from Saudi to Egypt to Iran and for backing Israel so strongly.  Are they ignoring that we also do a lot of good and are they in general nuts?  Sure.  But does their position resonate with a significant chunk of the Islamic population -- yes.

To weaken them we have to weaken that resonance.  Not that I'd argue against killing anyone found to be involved in planning terror.  Just don't think that's enough.

link to mayor's statement, for any who may have missed it.

19 Jun 2005 Ibn Zanbour restaurant, Baghdad customers at kebab restaurant suicide bomber 23 dead

20 Jun 2005 Arbil traffic police recruits suicide car bomb 13 dead

22 Jun 2005 Shula and Palestine St., Baghdad restaurants and bus station car bombs 23 dead

23 Jun 2005 Karrada, Baghdad mosques, police patrol, bathhouse car bombs 17 dead

25 Jun 2005 Samarra home of Lt. Muthana al-Shaker, special forces officer suicide car bomb 11 dead

26 Jun 2005 Bab al-Toob police station, Mosul police station suicide truck 12 dead

 7 July 2005 London transit system 37 dead

Oh, I read it. And whether or not it was a rhetorical questions should be beside the point.

He was simply asking whether conservatives believe this is a positive or negative indicator on the success of the war on terror; though his view was obviously clear, it's certainly within his rights to express them. You indicated that there was, in fact, another way to view the events of July 7, 2005. And when asked what that other point of view was, you refused to answer, because it's "trolling."

In my view, that's a complete cop-out. If you honestly believe in what you said, you should have the courage to back up your claim. If you'll re-read my post, I'm not here to flame anyone, not once have I said anything even approaching disrespectful, and I'm fully prepared to discuss this topic in a rational manner, because I truly am curious about what you guys think.

Political discourse is what his country is, sadly, lacking as of late. It is part of what makes our country so special, that we can disagree and yet still have a rational discussion and, hopefully, have enough empathy to see the other's point of view. And if you refuse to answer, there can be little doubt that you either can't support your argument or are avoiding the argument altogether and are, therefore, a hypocrite.

So many are worried that the world will lose its resolve.  I worry more about the steps we may take at home to get a really false sense of security.  Such vulnerability is the nature of freedom.  Without vulnerability, there is no freedom.

We must be careful to preserve our own liberties and  our own way of life while we pursue terrorists.  Some would say if we don't act, they win.  I say if we change our way of life in fear of them, they win.  That's why the over use of the term post-911 world irks me.  It was a horrible event, but if we are compelled to change our lives and live in fear or anger because of it, it seems like we have caved into what they want.

and I add, God send you good deliverance from such as these, and that right speedily.

...in horseshoes and hand grenades.  If you think my scenario is but the nightmare of a fevered bigot, here's a few links for you:

http://lists.humanist.toronto.on.ca/pipermail/hat-letters/2005-February/000
019.htmlhttp://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/29/business/gflede.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004095.php

http://moderntribalist.blogspot.com/2004/12/muslim-second-wives-in-britain.
html

http://dougharper.blogspot.com/2004/05/sharia-in-canada.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35850

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000236.php

http://nosharia.com/jsapr2.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0810/p01s03-woam.html

It is happening, and you can ignore it, but I won't.

on the "Arab Street", where it does not matter what was said in the FT, when it was said, or if it is true.

I am unaware of any Christian fundamentalist group in the US of more than a dozen members which wants to "undermine the "whole free society thing"." or to impose Biblical law [whatever that may be.] on the country.

Please investigate the following:

Christian Reconstructionism

Theonomy

Dominionism

I've got good money that says the followers of these beliefs number more than a dozen.

Ante up.

Cheers -

what I meant was that some of the Muslim groups that condemned 9-11 were shortly thereafter shutdown for connections to terrorism. So I take the condemnations with a grain of salt. Talk is cheap.

c)terrorists in Iraq are preoccupied with saving (or martyring) their own butts.

What about Afghanistan?  see above.

I have to agree with you.  It is much easier to plan and execute such attacks within Britain's tolerant and permissive society without having to worry about airports, border crossings, etc. before and after the attacks.    

All,

Mr Krempasky and others called me on a comment I made yesterday in the heat of anger over the attacks on London: "rally the West against these Muslim scum!"  I apologize for that comment and the tone it represented.  It was out of line and I had descended to the level of incivility.

Sorry that some of us want Western civilization to survive. My apologies.

Firstly the three terms you list are not groups, but are ideas that float about within groups.  

Secondly, from what I have read (very little, to be sure) they focus not on imposing their beliefs but generating a belief that will grow from below instead of from above. (Except Dominionism, more below)

Thirdly, they (as do a lot weird idea-people) redefine common terms for their own use-- such as theocracy.  They change the usual meaning to that of a local or community spirit of peer relations infused by Biblical traditions.  They then make up the word 'ecclesiocracy' to mean church run government.  

Very strange if considered as a political movement, but really nothing like Wahhabiism in terms of virulence or propensity for violence.  So you won't have to live like a Hasidic Christian if you don't want to as far as I can tell.

Dominionsism is just KKK-type stupidity applied to Evangelical churches.  They are odious people, but you can't believe what they say.  They claim to have followers and claim to be leading their churches into new or reformed denominations, but this never happens.  There may be more than one dozen of them, but I would still bet they couldn't fill a good size church without free food much less fill a decent fire-house.  To be sure, one shouldn't tolerate such nonesense from one's pastor or parishoners, but I think any fear or re-establishing Slavery or Saabath restricitons is misplaced.  

Most if not all of the information about these people comes in the form of wild-eyed screeds form opponents telling us  how dangerous these nuts are, and from wild-eyed screeds by participants telling us how sure they are to be popluar and successful.  There doesn't seem to be a lot of reliable information about them.  In any case there is no institutional support behind them, and despite what you may think, the more people hear of them the less they like them.  A lot of Christians can support concepts like 'supporting God's laws', but that doesn't really extend to slavery or captial swearing, that is a short-hand amongst most for 'what I think the law should be', just like for the atheist the phrase 'liberal democracy' means 'what I think the law should be'.  

People redefine the terms before they allow reality or common definitions to intrude on their chosen label for their philosophy.

First, I find little important difference between an explicit dominionist/theonomic/what-have-you group, and a mere group of people that subscribe to those beliefs. YMMV.

Second, it matters little to me if folks want to embody religious creed and practice in civil law by force or by persuasion.  I believe firmly in the principle of the separation of religious and civil institutions, for reasons personal, historical, theological, and political.

Finally, it matters equally little to me what terms people use for embodying religious creed amd practice in civil law.  It is what it is, I resist it, and I will continue to do so.

My money remains on the table.  We're talking about more than 12 or 101 people, and, personally, I set my face against them.

As an aside, it may be that I do live like a Hasidic Christian.  You have no way of knowing, or not.  And, that's not the issue, nor is it your business.  And that, perhaps, is the issue.

Cheers -

People here in Denmark, are no speculation if the war will come to our soil.

For a long time, for many people, terror attacks has been a thing that happened to the US, because "Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction!!11".

Now, when it hits England, and a group takes responsability and says Denmark is next if if don't withdraw our troops from Iraq, I think a lot of people have suddenly realized what we are up against - coldblooded killers, that doesn't care about collateral damage. If fact, they see it as a bonus.

Many people here in Denmark have regarded terrorism as the US own problem, because "they kinda cause it themselves with the war, Gitmo, dissecration of the Koran" etc. But nobody have those ill feeling towards the british, and people now understands, that this can hit us as well - and nobody in Denmark believes danish soldiers deserves this - even less of course civilians.

My point is (my god, you're still reading?!), that many people has suddenly woken up and decided, that "illegel war" or not, its time to CRY HAVOC AND LET LOOSE THE DOGS OF WAR.

The attack on London was an attack on democracy, and the freedom of the world.

In regards to those who planned and excecuted the attack, I pray allah have mercy on their souls, because nobody else will.

Kastberg, Denmark

Poland and Italy are in the process of removing their troops from Iraq.  And the other nations that you dismiss as being too weak, I think maybe you aren't respecting the valuable service which they have provided the world in Afghanistan.  Both Germany and France have substantial forces in Afghanistan.  I think it is somewhat of a disservice to be calling our allies weak and self-loathing.And yes, France and Germany are our allies.  Those who would give up solid relationships with our friends over a disagreement on strategy will find themselves with far fewer friends in a dangerous world.  That's never good.  Support for the war on Iraq should not be equated with support for the war on terror.

And at any rate my comment wasn't about letting our guard down.  My comment was saying that we should keep the bombing out of politics, that we should not throw blame for this attack on those who would disagree with us.  Quite frankly I never said that we should  begin (as you said) "Mourning without vigilance and measured response is reserved for when the battle is over; for those who don't recognize the battle rages on."  Rather, I said this: "Let us, as a global community, mourn for the victims, find who perpetrated this action, and then react."  I see little to suggest that I was advocating letting our guard down.  A measured and calculated response is always better than wildly flailing our collective arms.  We did not madly rush into Afganistan after 9/11, we determined who is responsible, and then pursued them.  When the Taliban failed to hand over OBL, we invaded.  This was a fair and measured response.  And it was appropriate.

September 7, 2005

MOSUL, Iraq -- A terrorist captured near the Syrian border last month had a computer "thumb drive" that contained planning information about the July 7 suicide bombings in London, according to a U.S. military officer.

    Col. Robert Brown, commander of the 1st Brigade 25th Infantry Division in Mosul, said that the man was captured north of Qaim in western Iraq and that authorities had connected him to the al Qaeda terrorist network.

    It is the first evidence of a link between the London bombs and terrorists in Iraq, but fits with other evidence of a growing presence in Iraq by al Qaeda, which has taken responsibility for the British attacks.

Here's the limk:

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050906-102658-7545r.htm