Chatham House.

I do not believe AND HAVE NEVER STATED that the threat of terrorism should have prevented us from going to war, but war has consquences, and this was the least of them. If you think britain is not less safe because we went to war, you too are sadly naive. I'll use your analogy missi. Standing up to a bully may well be the right thing to do, but that doesn't stop you getting punched. I did not express concern for anyone outside our shores because I was trying to stay on topic. Please do not think I am unconcerend.

Did they charge 'excess baggage' for all your hate - heavy man :o) Give my regards to Fred in Twang Town.

Just reading the quote from Missi above must illustrate the attitude towards our way of live of the extremists. That's just the tip of the iceburg and it runs very deep. You can't honestly believe that prior to the war they saw us as normal and alright. The fourth largest economy in the world; former emperors; associated heavily with the creation of every decadent western sin they can think of. we've been on the list for ages. Why have 'non-war' places been bombed BEFORE us if it's just about the war? I don't recall seeing the people of Bali storming Baghdad. "Britain has been on al-Qaeda's target list since the group's earliest days in the 1990s; the country's appointment with terror was ensured. " That's a quote from an article on CNN by someone who believes that the war MAY have been been A major factor in the London bombings. It mentions the muslims and jihadists travelling to that part of the world to receive 'on the job' training in fighting and it quotes OBL himself as naming Spain as one of the countries to be targetted because of the war and prior to the Madrid bombings. Like I say, the war hadn't helped but those bombings were inevitable and that's all there is to it, maybe not until next year or the year after or some other time when we're less prepared and feeling complacent because we're out of the spotlight and, maybe, with worse results. We're infadels, plain and simple, and it's their job to get rid of us like a plague of rats. This isn't about 'who fired the first shot' and it isn't some brawl outside a pub where we'll all get along tomorrow when we've calmed down. This is an attack and we either sit back and let it happen or we fight it.

Perhaps we shgouldn't have spent the last fifty years having open house to every dissident from anywhere in the world. Some may say we should be proud of our multi-culturalism but it brings conflict with it. The main reason we've been targeted so easily is because we're so open and liberal in our society. The truth is, that disparate societys and cultures will never assimilate each other to the point of indistinguishability. Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Christians all believe their way is the right way, and will never bend to each other.

Unless you are in the military or in a combat zone, mathematically, you are just as safe now as you ever were. The difference is only in your head. You’re more likely to be killed by lightning than you are by a terrorist. Do you think the world is a safer place for terrorists as a result of the war in Iraq?

Ely said: "we've been on the list for ages." I think I already conceded this point. Yet, known islamic terrorist attempts on British interests from 1990 to the iraq war: zero. after the iraq war: three (london, shoebomber, istanbul). I think the figures speak for themselves. (there are boasts, without dates or details, of up to 20 serious attempts foiled in europe since sept 2001) It is overly simplistic to view it as a purely religious war. Al Quaeda (there's that name again) attacked american interests specifically because of grievances over isreal/palestein and later the first gulf war. Somehow they drove british nationals to kill british nationals, not a targeted or purposeful attack either but a cynical and brutal attempt to end life. That was an act of hate. 56 dead in two years is mathematically insignificant (although I doubt there were that many lightning deaths in the UK). Is the world a safer place for terrorists? Look at the one place most affected, iraq. On average 800 people a month are killed (that's a lot of lightning). Directly as a result of the war (or, rather, the botched post war plan). The terrorists are thriving. Missi's (uncredited) quote illistrates both the unpleasantness of islamic fundamentalism and the scaremongering there is about it. There is no credible threat of any western nation being put under that yoke. Other nations maybe, and we may choose to defend them from it, but we cannot stand up and fight without putting ourselves in the firing line.

It was an extract, and it was written by Kevin Toolis, an acknowledged terrorism expert. He wasn't scare-mongering, just describing what life in a western society would become in the event of Islam becoming the ruling ideology. As Ian says, ALL Moslems are urged to purge the world of 'infidels', the fact that some of them decline doesn't detract from the basic policy. If 'our' way of life is so evil why do so many of them come here and take advantage of our hospitality? The deaths in Iraq are almost entirely due to the fundamentalists trying to supress the majority of the nation under it's pre-war tyrannical yoke. I can't say I'm happy to be in anyone's firing line but if it's a choice between that and meek submission, I'll take my chances on freedom. To label the war as being of religious origin is definitely NOT simplistic, overly or otherwise. Most wars are of religious origin as it happens, and that part of the world has been at it since the Crusades.

From what I gathered, Al Quaida was far from being as organised, connected and funded etc., even at the time of the 9/11 attacks, as the polititians subsequently tried to make us believe. It's all dragged down to a lowest common denominator aimed to give an elusive enemy a face and a name in order for middle America and middle England to know what to aim for and support this self-important "War on Terror". Yes, there have been islamic fundamentalist attacks before, but since the beginning of the Iraq war scores of moderate muslims - not only in the middle east! - have been pushed into corners and radicalised within a few years. We might have always been on the list of a handful of fundamentalist maniacs, but in our shortsighted, ignorant and totally inadequate reaction to this we've driven an army of moderates into those maniac's hands. We've been sowing dragon's teeth. And the chances are we'll be reaping what we sowed for years to come! For the government to deny any connection or any responsibility, particularly in view of the invasion of Iraq, is totally preposterous and just an attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes. We've not only managed to alienate moderate Muslims all over the world, but also the large Muslim community in our own country. It's always easy to go on about it as "Us" and "Them" in a wider context, and it's even easier due to the fact that most battlefields are far removed from our daily lives - and yet we are living with a Muslim community whereever we are, which is conveniently ignored and what's more, it is ignorantly assumed that they are on "our side" and think and feel like us just because they happen to live on British soil. Why would they? Why should they? If you look at the profiles of the London bombers, their ages and backgrounds etc., it should give us an indication as to what's been going on. To just reduce their actions to having been "brainwashed" and merely holding religion responsible for this is just too simple - and obviously welcomed by the government since it keeps them out of the line of fire. Black and white thinking might benefit those in power but it doesn't necessarily benefit those who have to use public transport on a daily basis to get to work. Ely wrote: "This is an attack and we either sit back and let it happen or we fight it." Who's talking about letting it happen? I think we'd all agree that that isn't an option. And it goes without saying that we all see the necessity to fight it - the crucial question is: HOW?? The "War on Terror" is a propaganda coup and macho stance, in short: a joke. And it obviously doesn't work! Since 9/11 we had Bali, Casablanca, Istanbul, Madrid and now London, not to mention what's going on in the hotbed of international terrorism that is Iraq these days. So HOW are we fighting terrorism? By the use of weapons technology or further occupations of nation states (maybe Iran?) and thus humiliating and alienating even more people i.e. sowing dragon's teeth which will rise as suicide bombers left, right and centre? Or are we fighting it by means of eroding civil liberties and gradually slipping into a Big-Brother-state where the authorities know about every single step of every single citizen? Or maybe we should chuck all the Muslims (and anybody who looks like one) out of the country and seal the borders henceforth? Or maybe, just maybe, we should indeed sit back for a moment, use our brains for a change and see what we can realistically achieve. Maybe we should sit back for a moment and think about the effect of our actions over the past few years. And maybe, just maybe, we could realise that the current situation is partly of our own making and that there are no quick action plans to revert it, no muscle flexing or quick solutions to make it go away, in other words: no propaganda war to be won. [%sig%]

I was going to stay quiet, I've blabbered more than I care to on this subject and it's really pointless; however, I just can't resist...seeing how we have some rational opinions being voiced...why not. Dan, my generalization doesn't apply to Iraq (and I qualified that too)...it's a war zone. When you live in a war zone, you are never safe. Wars are fought to gain control or power or to protect control and power. The fighting is nothing more than militant political posturing by other means...The bombings in London, New York, Washington, Spain, where-ever have no military significance. The roadside bombs and car bombs are a more effective military response, but have less of an emotional impact on the general public, as it is "over there and it's soldiers" The flaw of the terrorist thinking is that people can be convinced or prodded if they think their own safety is at risk. Hitler (here we go again) changed to this tactic in WWII with your country during the blitz, and it was one of the single biggest reasons you aren't speaking German today. It only galvanized your state of mind to defeat it. Since you have greater capacity to wage war than the terrorists, you will ultimately win. It is simple mathematics. Terrorist can't amount much more than organized mass murder and criminal activity, they have to work from hiding places and their actions are far and few between. Look at all the things our leaders are criticized over...i.e. what is the plan, what are the goals, what is the exit strategy? Now apply that criterion to the opposition. I don't see a goal, except to rid the middle east of Israel in which case they will eventually have to go to Israel and fight them face to face, which has been tried and didn't work. Maybe it's to gain control of the oil, but that's going to be gone in a couple of decades, so that's not a long term success story. They'll end up broke and without any friends in the long run. Perhaps they think they can convince the west to leave the middle east altogether...That will never happen. Even if we did leave, they'd just import us back when they find out we have more to offer than they can generate. Nope, the news is just news, the war is just hyped up bullshit, used to justify the underlying politics. They'll kill their own religion because they don't understand that wrong can't withstand scrutiny. What is their plan? It looks to me like they just want to kill. Organized murder. They are criminals, not warriors. They are legends in their own minds. Hunt them down, one at a time, put them away, destroy their resources, and destroy their support systems. Never stop, never negotiate. They can't possibly win by attrition nor by any other means other than political and moral collapse of the west, which will never happen. These fanatics are murdering idiots, plain and simple. If they want to die, there is no shortage of people in the world that will accommodate their wish. They'll either all die or they'll loose the will to keep going. It's much tougher on them than us, bet on it. Thinking nice thoughts won't make it go away.

this whole argument seems to boil down to those who believe this was a response and those who feel it was an attack. IF it was a response to the war then what do we do pschmitt? what do we do, TODAY? right or wrong, the war happened and so did those bombings so what do we do? what we do is, as you say, think- but not of who to blame at home from the comfort of our desks, and not of ways to appease those who would attack us further by looking inwards and making excuses in the name of understanding. We think of a solution and the only way we can do that is to fully understand the reasons behind the actions of our attackers. I don't feel that pushing the war as high on their list of motives as you do will get us to that understanding. George: Just to clarify something, youi're right that I believe ALL muslims are urged BY THE EXTREMISTS to hate us but, of course, most ignore it and keep to the true Muslim ways just as most christians didn't support the branch davidians in Waco.

I've read the Koran; the Koran tells Muslims to rid the world of non Muslims, plain and simple, black and white. Now, figure out the ideology and the fanatic followers that believe this. Those that choose to ignore this teaching are the only saving grace of the religion. The Muslim religion is not a religion of peace, it's a religion of dominance and subservience, I don't care how it's buttered up by whom. It's never advanced philosophically beyond the medieval. Christians aren’t much more advanced. Hell, pick a religion, any religion…

I didn't misunderstand you Ian, but even the 'true' moslem way is far removed from what is socially acceptable in a modern civilised world. You don't have to go far in Britain today to see oppressed moslem women on our own streets. Arranged marriages, burkhas, multiple wives, the whole stinking shooting match.

It's men against women,again. A joke my ex-wife told me, she's Israeli, just after the six day war. Arab women walked ten yards behind their men, before the war. After, they walked twenty yards in front. Why? Land mines.

Ely wrote: "this whole argument seems to boil down to those who believe this was a response and those who feel it was an attack." See what I mean: Black/White; Either/Or. As far as I'm concerned, the truth is somewhere in the middle, in any case more complex than just attack = religion or response = Iraq war. Look at the age of most of the London bombers, look at their backgrounds - it pretty much indicates that their attack had a lot to do with a response and vice versa. "We think of a solution and the only way we can do that is to fully understand the reasons behind the actions of our attackers." Why just the actions of our attackers? What about our own motives and actions? It naturally cuts both ways, doesn't it? In any case, who exactly are the attackers? Al Quaeda? And if yes, who are Al Quaeda? In the Western media it is somehow portrayed as a static organisation - and of course it must have been very big and powerful to have managed the 9/11 attacks! - when in fact they were just a handful of people connected with Bin Laden at the time when the twin towers where being attacked. A few years on and there are thousands and thousands of Muslims all over the world directly or indirectly sympathising or indeed actively connecting with Al Quaeda. Where have these people come from all of a sudden? They weren't available to those maniacs five years ago, which obviously means there has to be something of a response to everything that's been going on ever since. I'd go even further by doubting that this kind of terrorism needs Al Quaeda any more. This is just for our benefit to have a proper enemy. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of those people radicalised over the past five years partly due to our politics (or lack thereof) have used that time to set up their own cells and networks, which makes them even more elusive and dangerous. And this was utterly predictable. And it is, again, to a great part of our own making. "IF it was a response to the war then what do we do pschmitt? what do we do, TODAY?" The situation is a complete mess and a total pig's dinner. Simple as that. There's not much we can do but take the consequences of our actions and hopefully tackle the situation more intelligently in the future. There is no way we could get out of Iraq right now because more likely than not a civil war would ensue or the religious fundamentalists would take over the country or both. As regards terrorism we are pretty vulnerable and I reckon it'll go on for years to come... [%sig%]

Alum, you're a bigger ****** than even I thought.

Whether or not you believe the first attacks in London were directly linked to the war in Iraq or not, one thing that I am sure holds true is that blatant disregard for human life crosses continents and religions. How can the powers that be in our country condemn what happens under their noses when they are responsible for pointless killings and disregard for human rights elsewhere, like Iraq. For what it's worth, I do believe that there is a link between terror attacks and the war in Iraq. I don't believe there was any link between Al Qaida and Iraq prior to the invasion (Iraq being a very secular government under SH would hold no interest for Bin Bag other than contempt) but with the ensuing chaos and anger against the coalition it has become a perfect recuiting ground for Jihadis. I say for what it's worth because I think Blair, Bush etc etc have given enough grounds for hatred against their nations that it's almost irrelevant. Once again Bin Bag just had to topple the first domino on Sept 11 and let rank stupidity finish the job off. Am glad I can't see the smirk on his face.

It cracks me up the way he writes WE'RE infiltrating. like he's got some kind of elite force under his command. Maybe they can fight SD's imaginary Glasgow rebels and we can have a war with no casualties for a change.

What I find funny is how this dweeb must be wasting so much time and effort on something so stupidly unproductive. Probably sitting at his computer, eating cup-cakes, drinking soda, gaining 20 lbs a night, drooling and laughing at his handywork between short filling farts, like some bevis and butt-head clone. aaaa...huh..huh huh...huhhuhhuh...this'll show em who's a retard....

Really good post Rachel.

Golly, and it was such a good thread, too!

Oh? Aren't we doing the right thing, invading someone's country for their own good? I'm being facetious.

"sceptic tank"! Hurrah!

How would you know?

I, personally, don't believe that our involvement in Iraq has qualified us for attack (mmm... should I start rapping? It's often a dilema when an opening line just happens to rhyme... nah!) I'm sure it's given a few nutters a few more things to shout about and may have swayed a few minds but this attack is about something much bigger and we, simply as examples of the decadent west, were ALWAYS in line for attack regardless of the war. we're not the only country to come under attack, even the anti-war French suffered at the hands of Muslim extremists, as have other muslims. also, it's a bit rich to shout "don't attack Iraq in the name of anti-terrorism because there are no links with Iraq and Al Quaeda" and then say, "the war in Iraq has lined us up for attacks from Al Quaeda" finally, and most importantly to me, going to war to stop a proper twat from carrying on and getting worse (yes, I know you'll alll scream that wasn't why we went to war) seemed like a good idea. To now shake in our boots and point the finger and say "see what you've done now? you've put us in the firing line, we should have left well alone then they wouldn't have noticed us" just seems cowardly. We went to war with Hitler (I call... whatever that thing is about forum arguments always migrating to Hitler) knowing full well that it would piss him off but that's how bullys get on, through fear and people keeping their heads below the firing line and hoping someone else stands up. Before any self righteous armchair freedom fighter throws the death of innocents at me let me say that I'm as fully aware of the suffering as you are, I'm also fully aware of the loss of innocent lives (each worth just as much as a London commuter's life) in Iraq. We feel their lives are worth the risk (Yes, I know YOU don't) in the fight against terror, then so are ours. It's a fight, people get hurt.

The only thing that qualifies you for attack is existing. If somebody or some country wants to attack you, you have met all the qualifications. The best alternative, as history has shown, is to be ready to defend yourself and to defeat your enemy once engaged.

Thanks Pepsoid, at least you got it.

sceptic tank = yank! Oh! Hahahahahahahaha! My, I haven't that much since my last bank statement.

Blair et al's assertion that the London attacks were nothing to do with Iraq is so moronic as to be offensive. I do not know which is worse, that he actually believes such palpable stupidity, or that his contempt for us is so great he will spout such palapble stupidity. Did we deserve it? Of course not. I have not heard even the most pinko lefty insunuate this. But pro-war advocates seem to accuse them of it to confuse the argument. Would we have been attacked anyway? Quite possibly, British interest were always fairly low down on the lists of islamic terrorists, but we were in their sights. Mostly due to historical gripes concerning palestine/israel and our status as "crusader nation" following the first iraq war. Afghanastan alone would have qualified us. but here's the important bit... Was Iraq on the minds of the bombers? Without a shadow of a doubt. As information comes out one fact is paramount. The men who did this were NOT nutters, they were educated and with futures, even familys. They were not duped into killing, they were driven by their own anger and that was about Iraq. So did we put ourselves in danger when we went to war? We pissed off homocidal maniacs, do the math. Does this mean we shoud not have gone to war? This could ONLY be the case if we went to war to save our own skins from terrorism. Bush managed to repeat this particularly piece of idiocy but Blair did not. If you destroy a wasps nest, you may get stung. Whether the cost is worthwhile, is very open to debate.

"Was Iraq on the minds of the bombers? Without a shadow of a doubt. As information comes out one fact is paramount. The men who did this were NOT nutters, they were educated and with futures, even familys. They were not duped into killing, they were driven by their own anger and that was about Iraq." Says who? I've heard relatives of the bombers talk, Iraq was mentioned to them less than muslim fundamentalism which, in itself, came as a surprise to their nearest and dearest. Yes it was organised and, as info comes out, it seems they might have been pawns duped into the 'suicidal' element of the attack as the bombs seem to have been remotely detonated by someone else. Angry? probably. Just "about Iraq"? I doubt it. More likely the kind of blind hatred that stems from intense religious brainwashing and subversive power. Issues that turn educated family men around to THAT kind of degree are built on a spiritual and moral level that has to stem back to the beginnings of their belief- of their creation. You don't do this kind of thing unless you think it will save the world for the good guys. (Ask any war vet) This is War of the Worlds to them and we're the invading aliens, not in Iraq but over THEIR entire world. They're religious extremists, I line them up next to the David Koresh's of this world. They take a perfectly decent belief system and warp it beyond recognition, dong more damage to the other muslims of the world than to the rest of us in the process. The cry of Al Quaeda wasn't first heard as Saddam's statue was destroyed, it's been preached for a very long time and it doesn't mention Iraq.

Sceptic tank = Septic tank. It's word play people.

That's what happens whenever the site morons join in.

I agree Ian. What I have difficulty with in all the reams of reportage and personal comment on here and other sites is how anyone can turn a blind eye to the predicament of others if it puts themselves in harms way. As I've said before, I believe that we all have a duty to help everyone else in their hour of need, even if it means endangering ourselves. The cowardly, 'it's none of our business, and we'll only get in the firing line' attitude sickens me. How many of the cowards have mentally put themselves in the position of the Kurds in northern Iraq, or those that were being murdered and tortured in Bhagdad? If 'I' were one of them I'd be begging for help, and wouldn't care where it came from. I'm also sick to death of hearing how religion is a caring, innocent, praise-worty concept. That's crap, and anyone who's ever read a history book knows it. Here's an extract from an article about what fundamental Islam means. 'All contact between the sexes would be banned. Discos, bars,public swimming pools, youth clubs, in fact anywhere that men and women could meet, would be closed. Sunbathing, beach holidays and ALL female sports would be outlawed. Fashion magazines would only be allowed to publish if all female flesh were 'blacked out'. Women would not be allowed out in public with uncovered hair. All females, even as young as four, would have to wear a hijab to disguise her body shape, even in summer. Bikinis, skimpy clothes and any garment revealing a womans curves would be banned. Women could only meet men that were relatives although men may have up to four wives. Education would be segregated and mixed sex entertainment banned. Rekigious 'police' would be on patrol and enforce the Islamic dress code and would arrest any suspected 'courting' couples. Suspected adulterers would be hanged or stoned to death in public. Every aspect of family life would be determined bu Islamic code......' I could go on but there's no point. How many here would want to live under that kind of regime? The other religions are not much better, what with the Dope telling people what they can put on their dicks in private, and another allowing people to go hungry but won't allow the consumption of beef. Yeah, religion is great.

"ALL female sports would be outlawed" Free up some tee times at the golf course. But no pint after me round. Mmm, seems a fair exchange.

We are continually told that young muslims feel disenfranchised and angry about iraq, jihadist web sites and discussion boards are "full of Iraq". Hell, even I'm still spitting mad about iraq. But the bombers, oh no, they were just deluded religous nutters fighting an unconnected holy war. Right! But then just look at the the numbers. I can't find the article but in the immediate aftermath of the attack the police said they had foiled a large number of terrorist attacks in the past two years. We'll discount the one's we have not heard about, we'll discount the Wood Green ricin lot because that was just a joke, we'll discount the heathrow sam attack because it never happened so might have been rubbish. That leaves the london bombs and the the shoebomber. Two attempts in two years. Now let me think back to how many islamic terrorist attacks there were on British interest BEFORE the iraq war. Not much leaps to mind. Lockerbie but that was a different thing, but allowing that, one attempt in twenty years. Right or not, the war was deeply controversial and widely despised. It increased the hate directed at us a thousand fold. That it put us at increased risk of terror attacks is obvious.

Dan, if you think you can make Britain safer by ignoring the dictators and despots around the world you are sadly naive. Perhaps you're one of those that think if we keep our heads below the parapet the 'bullys' won't notice us. Well I've lost count of the times that such behaviour has had the opposite effect. Neville Chamberlain was one such naive fool, with his 'peace in our time' speech. Apart from all that guff about incidents you 'discount' but insist on mentioning, nowhere have I seen you express the slightest concern for your fellow human outside our shores. I'm all right Jack?