The London Bombings

It’s tempting to suggest that today’s terrorist attack in London would not have happened had Tony Blair not supported George Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

Tempting, perhaps, but it would be wrong.

Truth is, ever since 9/11 London has been at risk of attack. At the time al-Qaeda flew those planes into the Twin Towers, I was working in London’s financial district. In the weeks that followed that attack, a grim sense of inevitability settled on the capital. We didn’t question whether a similar atrocity would take place in London. We only wondered when. Few Londoners will have been surprised by today’s attack.

This isn’t the first time terrorists have struck London. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s the Irish Republican Army (IRA) detonated a number of devices there. Ironically, the IRA used to raise much of its money in the US, and Gerry Adams, leader of the IRA’s political wing, was a regular guest in Washington.

I don’t believe that the British will respond to today’s attack in the same way the Spaniards did to the Madrid train bombings. I don’t think the British government will find itself under any great pressure to pull Britain’s troops out of Iraq, and neither should it do so. Aside from the dangerous message it would send the terrorists, today’s attack would have happened even if the UK hadn’t any troops there. Not because the British are a “freedom loving people” and the terrorists “hate freedom”, though. Nope, they hate the UK because of the UK’s support for the US. And they hate the US because of specific foreign policies – namely its policy in the Middle East and support of Israel.

What the London bombings have done, however, is demonstrate the stupidity of the claim that by taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq, the West is stopping the terrorists bringing the fight to us. Staging a successful terrorist attack on Western soil is always going to be more attractive to the terrorists that killing a few marines in Iraq. Today’s attack won’t be the last.

Comments

[njegos on 07.07.05 at 23:39]

"I don’t think the British government will find itself under any great pressure to pull Britain’s troops out of Iraq, and neither should it do so. Aside from the dangerous message it would send the terrorists, today’s attack would have happened even if the UK hadn’t any troops there."

I look at it the other way around, Phil. If US and UK foreign policy in the Middle East is a disaster, which I believe that it is, then we should not allow a bombing outrage to deflect us from our long overdue withdrawal.

[Rich Schwietzer on 07.07.05 at 23:44]

I think The Limey in Bermuda overstates his case when he writes that the terroriist attacks in London demonstrate the "stupidity" of the argument that taking the fight to terrorists stops terrorists "bringing the fight to us." That's a bit of a carricarture of a sophisticated position that might be stated thusly: Offensive operations in Iraq and Afghanistan complicate an make more difficult Al Queda's plans to attack the West. Clearly since the British and American forces have gone on the offensive in Afghanistan, Iraq and covertly around the globe, Al Queda has been on the defensive. Case in point, the Al Queda planner who specialized in martime attacks who was blown up by a Hellfire missile in Oman or Yemen a couple years back. On a macro-level, from 1993(first attack on the World Trade Center)to 96 (Kohobar Towers) 98 (American Embassies in Africa)

[Rich Schwietzer on 08.07.05 at 00:25]

2000 (USS Cole) to 9/11, there was a series of attacks, occurring roughly every 2 years on American interests. Since offensive operations began in Afghanistan and Iraq, this pattern, today's horrific events notwithstanding, has been disrupted.
Throughout the Cold War there was a debate among Cold Warriors and left- leaning academics and policy makers as to whether Communism sould be understood as a monolith or a series of fragmented nationalist groups, a debate between splitters and groupers. In 1973 the splitters seemed to be ascendant, but by 1989, when the Soviet Union went bellyup and the 3rd World communists went broke after the funding from Moscow Central dried up, the groupers seemed to have carried the day. Reagan , the Gipper as Grouper,has been vindicated by much of what has come out of the archives (Hiss in particular).
I submit that in envisoining Iraq as a front in the global war on terror, President Bush is a grouper extraordinaire. This grouping has been borne out by the presence in Baghdad in the summer of 2003 of Abu Nidal (Rome and Vienna airport atacks 1985), Abu Abbas (Achille LAuro,'85) and Zarqawi. Ultimately, the best way to defeat Al Queda's Islamist ideology is , as with the fascist powers afer World WarII, by supplanting it with an ideology of freedom and democracy. Whether or not this ideologogical graft takes is a matter that won't be known for some time. But in conceptualizing the problem under the rubric of a global war on terror, by seeing a the link between Saddam's subsidzing of homicide bombers in Israel and terrorists of the 1980's who resided in Baghdad, for making such groupings , Bush deserves credit. At best, the fight in Iraq will lead to a democratic Iraq whose elctions will have, and indeed all ready have had, a demonstration effect in the Mid-East. At the very least, taking the offensive is suppression fire on a grand scale and should hardly be charecterized as stupid.

Thoughts and prayers go out to the dead and wounded in London.

[H Reardon on 08.07.05 at 09:32]

Well said, Rich.

[njegos on 08.07.05 at 09:50]

Rich:

"Offensive operations in Iraq and Afghanistan complicate an make more difficult Al Queda's plans to attack the West."

Totally disagree.

A temporary disruption of a bombing pattern does not represent a victory especially in a "war on terror". As they say, kill one "terrorist" (often an innocent person or even family) and get 10 free. And OBL and his sympathisers have time on their side. Unlike impatient Western voters, they don't need a rapid victory.

The other problem is that we refuse to accept that a great number of Muslims view us as the terrorists. I doubt the slaughter of 17 villagers in Konar province last weekend has changed this view and it's no good saying "but we apologised for that" or "that is rubbish" or "time to move on". They will not forget. We ignore the very bloody causes of their resentment at our peril. Remember, "we" have been bombing "them" for decades. Democratically, of course.

Incredibly, even at this stage few politicians dare to question our foreign policy. Instead we are encouraged to believe that everything happens in a vacuum and our behaviour has no consequences.

Wrong. We now we have jihad to the streets of London.

Violence begets violence.

[H Reardon on 08.07.05 at 09:59]

"Unlike impatient Western voters, they don't need a rapid victory."

Make that Spanish voters--in fact Spanish voters should feel some responsibility for the London bombings.

The London bombings will shore up support for the war in the US and I would suspect in the UK as well. I sure didn't see Tony Blair waffling yesterday.

[Frank on 08.07.05 at 09:59]

The London Underground network was a prime target- and everyone knew an attack would come... and when least expected, so why weren't more security measures enforced?

Question is - what more could have been done?

[Shak on 08.07.05 at 10:08]

What all of you fail to realise is the ture reason behind attacks. The UK's support of the US and the UK's own foreighn policy is a cause of some of it but not all.
The main reason is because of what Islamist terroists that carry out these attacks belive. They belive in the extreme interpretaion of the Koran and all dream of a world under Islam. A world were Islam is the only true religion and others are false, were freedome dose not exists and people can not voice there opions, that is a religious dictoatorship which is what they want. They think that attacks like these will further there goals which they wont.
To withdrawing troops from Iraq right now would be a mistake. Do you really think that if the UK pulls its troops from Iraq and Afganistan the attacks will stop? well they wont because it is the very idea of our society that is a threat to those carrying out these attacks. Also the troops must stay there untill Iraq has built up a strong defense force so that they can take care of there own sercurity. If the troops are pulled out to soon Iraq will descent into more chaos.
Wheather you agree with the invasion or not it would be stupid and dangerous to leave Iraq in a defensless postion.

[njegos on 08.07.05 at 10:11]

"Make that Spanish voters--in fact Spanish voters should feel some responsibility for the London bombings."

Blame everyone but yourself Reardon.

[jake on 08.07.05 at 10:18]

I think valid lessons have been learned from yesterday, and more will come. I admire the British defiance of terrorists in the same way their parents and grandparents defied the Nazi's during the bombing of London.

Several attacks have been thwarted in the UK, and we have suffered a huge wound in the attacks of yesterday, but to be so ready to throw in the towel is not, I suggest, the way to go.

What is also to be admired is the way the society did not simply point the finger at muslims, but was specific in its definition of specific subgroups - a distinct minority. Blair is to be admired for that, although it comes as no surprise to me - he is consistent in that way.

We are also unlikely to see an overeaction by way of legislation or military action. I am confident that there will be a response however and it will not be one of waffling.

Bermuda could learn much from this. Our own approach to crime needs to find a middle ground. Certainly we can beef up our response to people who break the law and then hide behind well practiced legal counsel and irrelevant Judges. We must avoid the temptation to throw out law, fairness and due process however. A middle ground takes years to develop, and I suspect Britain's history of both honour and atrocity has brought them to theirs. Perhaps we can take a leaf from their pages and jump start our own culture so that we can build on their success.

My sentiments are with the people of London today - the mighty fearless defiant Londoners.

[anonymous on 08.07.05 at 10:25]

If we did back down and change our policies these attacks will still happen. Don't any of you understand the term fanaticism? It doesn't matter if we pull out of iraq, afghanistan etc they will always find a reason to attack westerners. These people believe england should be an islamic state and I think only that would stop england getting hit. There's no point trying to think how we can change our policies to stop these people hating us. They do, and they will always convince more to their cause with lies. Muslims in Britain need to take more responsibility for such actions occuring in the name of a religion they support. They need to let the authorities know of possible fanatics in their mosques, they need to condemn these people as non-islamic and do more to help us protect ourselves. Moaning about being persecuted by the police (excuse me, but i don't know if you knew but terrorists are all muslims so thats why) and complaining about people being locked away as they pose a risk, so bloody what. We live in evil times and have to protect ourselves and personally I'm not surprised that an attack has now happened after we have relaxed our laws after so much public pressure when for so long we have not had one. I hope these do gooders can still sleep at night!

[Shark on 08.07.05 at 10:28]

Though i live in Putney my Dad gose to work in Central London and thankfully he was already at work before the bombs exploded.
Londoners will not be shoked by this as London has been through much worse.
London has survied IRA attacks and the blitz and will survive this. I myself plan to go out tonight to hang with my mates (providing that the public trasport will be working).

[Sean on 08.07.05 at 10:51]

It's so easy to get wrapped up in concepts of foreign policy, religious belief, culture & customs. But taking a step back, what we are actually discussing a group of malevolent people who, without regards for anyone else, will do or inflict the worst harm to get their message across. What we are forgetting is that the ideas of right and wrong transcend religion, customs and culture. When it comes down to it, terrorism is just wrong, regardless of what view points or religious beliefs you have. It's about time that something was done about it. Obviously normal diplomatic solutions don't work on these people, so what else can we do. The human mind dictates that in a dangerous situation we are ultimately left with 2 options: Fight or Flight. So folks, what's it going to be? Do you really think that if we left them alone that they would go away? I highly doubt it, and you would be fooling yourself if you said "yes". What we are really seeing is an evolved and much more lethal version of kindergarten politics, where the terrorists play the bully to get what they desire. No I don't think we should give in. Yes I do think we should go on the offensive and take these guys out where ever they are (If a country is willingly harbouring these groups, and refuses to co-operate then yes we should go to war). Don't get me wrong, I'm not a war monger, however if someone can come up with a good suggestion on how to deal with a group of people who are commited to wanton acts of destruction and death, then I'm all ears.

Just an idle though, it will be interesting to see how many fence sitters in London will suddenly change their viewpoints after yesterday's bombings.

For the people of London however, my heart goes out to you guys...

[Cancundreaming on 08.07.05 at 12:43]

Limey i think you employed the often-used tactic of debaters and opinion piece writers, you change the opposing argument to fit your analysis, or so that your analysis fits. I don't think the argument is that without Britain’s support of the Iraq war the bombing wouldn't happen. I don't think anyone could make that argument, it's almost impossible to map the causality of events for one to make that statement.

But i think the argument they would make is that the Iraq war, specifically Britain’s troop support of it, increased the likelihood, substantially I would think, that London and other British institutions will be targeted and i think that's a very reasonable and correct view to take; One that you did not address in your initial post. The nuance between the two arguments may seem insignificant to some, but it is very important.

I want to address Rich’s comments as I disagree with several aspects of them, but I’m not, because I think we’re all just blowing shit out of our asses and hoping for the best, and maybe that’s all we can do at this point. I’m not sure, but one quote does pop in my mind. It’s from one of my favorite essays named ‘Where Do We Go From Here? Chaos or Community’ written by Martin Luther King Jr.

”The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that."

[Shark on 08.07.05 at 20:07]

the only problem is the absense of light and love in the world we live in today.

[njegos on 08.07.05 at 22:38]

I strongly recommend this article. Very revealing:

http://amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html

[anon on 09.07.05 at 13:41]

"Offensive operations in Iraq and Afghanistan complicate an make more difficult Al Queda's plans to attack the West."

This argument is based on the assumption that the author has knowledge of the workings of Al Qaeda. Probably not, so if the cancer has spread through the body then killing it in the leg or hand is not going to prevent it from attacking other organs.

"...Whether or not this ideologogical graft takes is a matter that won't be known for some time..."

Well, in the meantime, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands and wifes of Americans, British, Iraqis and others are dying. So why don't we watch them die so we can test this theory.

There are 2 different things that I see:

First is the obvious one and that is the these terrorists are murderers and killers and they will kill, and they will try to kill in big numbers. I don't think it matters to them whether it's London or NewYork or Nairobi or aircraft carrier at sea. To them it does not matter whether the country they attack in is part of 'coalition against terror.' They are worse than the average serial killers because they go for large numbers of deaths, and therefore, much like the average killer, should be tried our courts and/or killed.

Secondly and more worryingly is the sympathy that certain people have for the actions of these terrorists. It is here that more terrorists spawn and it something that our political leaders need to focus on when thinking on their foreign policies. It is important to realize why the sympathy is felt and that we should aim to eliminate the root of the cancer and not the symptoms itself.

[ethiops on 09.07.05 at 17:09]

It's not uncommon for governments to also benefit from such things I can only imagine what sort of agendas are being set into motion grace of all this. I can't wait to see what ww.infowars.com has to say on this issue I’m sure it won't be what I’m being told in mainstream news...

[USA=UK on 11.07.05 at 12:02]

"they hate the UK becasue of the UK's support for the US"

You really are the worst kind of limey...the forgetful and ungrateful kind!

Am wondering how your German would be if it wasn't for the US?

Am also wondering who would respond first should riots break out all over Bermuda when the majority of Blacks decide to revolt against the limeys?

When you don't need the US...talk trash, but when you need the US, you are greatful that the US is there?

The truth is, the UK is nothing more than the US's puppet. I think that is what bothers you most.

p.s.- brush your teeth!

[njegos on 11.07.05 at 13:11]

The mask of "commitment" has dropped. Blair and Bush are getting the message.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/10/AR2005071000725_pf.html

[H Reardon on 11.07.05 at 14:48]

Njegos,

If the Post report is valid, I fail to see what you are gloating about. Bush is acting as he said he would all along--bringing the troops home when the Iraqis can handle things. Not exactly the liar you paint him every chance you get.

If the report is true, it is great news--something all of us can agree is a good thing. Why do you feel the need to take a piss out of Bush and Blair--particularly if they are doing the very thing you've been advocating.

[njegos on 11.07.05 at 15:38]

Rear-end:

Your failure to grasp the significance of this leak surprises no one. Only you could spin this humiliating disclosure as a victory for Bush and his poodle.

The great "coalition" is setting a 9 month time-table for withdrawal - the very thing they said they would never do because that would "play into the hand of the terrorists". Now we learn they are planning to leave whether or not Iraqis are ready to take control.

Gloating? I am relieved. It looks like we are finally getting out.

[H Reardon on 11.07.05 at 16:59]

"Rear-end"

Classy.

You're failure to grasp the fact that some portions of Iraq are getting under control is not surprising. You are clouded by your venom for Bush.

Don't you have a Nader for rubber band safety rally to attend?

[chef on 11.07.05 at 17:38]

I am proud to be British,we have been a protector of the interests for democracy and freedom for decades, we have stood with our friends in the Commonwealth, when others were too frightened.

The bombs of last week are only four of many, even in peacetime.the thoughts of the country are with those who have died or ben injured and their families, however it is a requirement to stand up against the bullies.

If the Commonwealth had not stood in 1940 and gained the support of th united States later, many countries and nationalities would today be slaves and much more ethnic cleansing would have taken place.

May I state that London and Great Britain is open for business as usual, the security is in place but the population can still walk the streets and in few countries can the head of state and her family plus leading politicians ride in open carriage and sit unprotected by screens zat open air events as demonstrated at the celebrations on Horse Guards and he Mall on Sunday!

Long live freedom, the right to demonstrate peacefuuly and to express a view thatr isdifferent, but let us seek out those who torture, maim and kill.

[brit on 12.07.05 at 07:30]

"Am wondering how your German would be if it wasn't for the US?"

Americans are tought one thing....revisionist history, otherwise known as lies and BS.

Perhaps the US should have joined the war earlier instead of watching the British get sloughtered for the first 2 or 3 years.
Maybe the British wouldn't have had to put up with IRA terrorist attacks if the Americans didn't provide huge amounts of monetary support for the IRA.

The American lack of knowledge is really embarrassing for you, why don't you educate yourselves instead of being the worlds dummies?

[Mrs j galt on 12.07.05 at 08:21]

brit

I would avoid such sweeping generalizations regarding American intellect. Further, could you please define the word "tought". Is it similar to "taught"?

Cheers

[brit on 12.07.05 at 09:03]

"I would avoid such sweeping generalizations regarding American intellect."

Be my guest...you would avoid the truth as well no doubt....that pesky reality!

"tought" is what is known as a 'typo'. Anything else you need help with?

[H Reardon on 12.07.05 at 09:33]

Relax Brit, without any one of the Big 3, WWII would have had a different ending. Since the US entered the war latest, it is easy to say we turned the tide. Without the British and Russian involvement prior to 1941, there wouldn't have been a tide to turn. Did the US win the war? Of course, and so did the Russians, Brits, Canadians and (it pains me to say) French.

No need to start insulting the intelligence (I think you mean ignorance) of 250 million people.

[Terry on 12.07.05 at 10:19]

Reardon, I don't always agree with you but your last post makes a lot of sense. I make a lot of 'typo's' sometimes myself. The sleeping giant is no longer asleep, and all those little giants are not either. All the countries that have taken a stand on this madness must not faulter and keep up the fight. It will happen again, just of where and when. We don't know, since our on the ground intelligence has been depleted which is another subject but relevant. We all have a part in this to play, keeping ours eyes and ears open and not being afraid to divulge what we may learn. It's hard but I would and have no choice to pric on someone when it involves this type of gruisome activity.(spelling). As I stated before, we are seeing traits like this in Bermuda. It's a matter of time before something happens and I hope we can deal with it now and attempt to nip it in the bud, whether it's local or external. A great day to all.

[David on 12.07.05 at 10:30]

We seem to be off the point somewhat, besides which the main reason Germany lost the war was Hitler's arrogance with taking on too much. Still we have no news on who's responsible for the wicked acts. In the newspaper today we hear off someone coming to talk to young muslims to claim that their are moments when suicide bombers are justified. It still amazes me how our society still lets this happen. It annoys me when the Muslim council in Britain condemns these attacks but does nothing to sort its own house out They are fully aware that there are muslims in all their mosques who preach support for terrorism yet they don't contact the police or stop it, it goes on. If they profess to hating such crimes don't you think they could do more to help. We in britain are having a law soon condemning criticism of religions, yet we allow such profanities. As a nation we need to stop pussy-footing around and come down harder on these people. So many of these apparant muslims say england is terrible, our government is evil, lets become an islamic state! Well, anytime you want to leave then go, please if its so bad to a muslim country where you have far fewer rights and a regime far tougher. of course they don't go and we wont send them out cos they maybe harmed. Fuck em! They hate it here so tough or follow our rules plain and simple.If the Government say their are people in prison they know through intelligence are a danger but such evidence can't be made open, then lets keep them there. I find it a worrying coincidence that for so long we've had no attacks then we we start letting people out, the bombs arrive. Its time we took these terrorits head on.

[brit on 12.07.05 at 10:37]

"Since the US entered the war latest, it is easy to say we turned the tide."

Just like it's easy for americans to say they have the most 'freedoms'...they don't, but then they don't really know anything about other countries anyway...such as Canada.

American history is a fairy tale....and it seems you've been sucked in by it as well.

[H Reardon on 12.07.05 at 10:43]

"We in britain are having a law soon condemning criticism of religions"

Posted by David

Why would there need to be such a law taking away free speech rights? Does that mean I can't make fun of Scientology if I'm in London?

[brit on 12.07.05 at 11:03]

Captainpants, if you don't like what your government is doing, then why don't you leave, or do something about it...instead of bitching and whining about others.

[UK=USA, i think u'll find on 12.07.05 at 11:59]

USA=UK

Poor comment. Think before you speak please. The Americans only joined the war once their own interests had been threatened. That sound very familiar to me... They may have turned the tide but they didnt win the war.

[brit on 12.07.05 at 12:04]

"The Americans only joined the war once their own interests had been threatened."

It's also interesting that they knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbour....and allowed it to happen...yes, the american way.

[H Reardon on 12.07.05 at 13:55]

Brit,

Being good friends with several British and spending significant time in London, I take comfort in the fact that you don't represent the typical Britton.

[david on 12.07.05 at 15:58]

brit. over 50 dead, we are trying to create a climate to stop it hppening again and you say i am whinging?? hmmmm of course you are safe as need accompanying to get on a tube but for those of us who passed GCSE history, please keep it quiet!

[brit on 12.07.05 at 17:57]

David, are you attempting to dispute something I've said, or are you just bragging about your O-levels?

[jake on 21.07.05 at 16:32]

Phil,

We have seen the second attempt by terrorists to threaten the resolve of the people of London. This time the cowardice was more clear as reports say that in one incident the bag was dropped in a tube carriage and then the holder ran out. He was not caught, but certainly his images will have been captured.

Has the time come for all ports and buildings to have bag searches? I know that in some offices in New York it is a standard operating procedure.

I wonder if this will ever hit us at home?

[The Limey on 21.07.05 at 17:40]

This one seems bizarre. Three explosions, seemingly simultaneous, yet none large enough to cause any injuries - BBC News reports they involved "detonators only". It seems unlikely that all three failed to explode as intended. But why would anyone only bother to explode a detonator?

One possibility was as a dispersal mechanism for a chemical, biological or radiological agent, but the police seem to have ruled that out.

Were these people really that incompetent? Or was there some other aim?

[Bill Cook on 21.07.05 at 18:17]

More pertinent regarding acts of terrorism is to study their origins.

Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims.

Is it too much to assume that the Muslim community and the Imams who are their teachers would be more likely to know than most others ?

Does any reasonably intelligent person really believe that anyone suddenly awakens up one morning and decides to commit these murderous acts ?

It is disengenous to have these Muslim leaders condemn these acts but do nothing to discourage them.

The parents and wives etc must surely know the mind set of these murderers as much discussion would occur prior to the acts.

[Two Cent Charlie on 21.07.05 at 19:04]

Bill,

Other than the fact that I don't thnk all terrorists are neccesarily Muslim, I would agree with you completely.

It is amazing that the leaders of these people can be so irresponsible and callous about life. There has to be some real mental issues involved.

It is particularly sad that the younger followers think that they are doing something that will help their cause. All it does is instill hatred for them, their mentality and ultimately undermines any cause they may believe in. It's similar to the IRA deciding they needed to try the political avenue after years of random bloodshed. Their leaders faced all sorts of sceptimism and still do.

I think I figured out how they each get 7 virgins in heaven. They take them with them. ie: the 27 children killed by the suicide bomber in Iraq recently.

[Steve Moffat on 21.07.05 at 19:18]

According to the BBC website, the bombs were the same as the last time, but failed to detonate properly.

[Two Cent Charlie on 21.07.05 at 19:30]

Steve,

Good news and bad news....

1: Good:They didn't go off. Bad: Will they try again very shortly?
2: Good:This gives the police a chance to find the source of the bombers if they can catch them alive. Bad: Just how many are there out there??

[Bill Cook on 21.07.05 at 20:06]

Two cents,

I meant all terrorists in context of the present situation.

I am very aware of the IRA being Irish and having to deal with that inc. being in the Europa Hotel when attacked.

The recent pull back by the IRA is in some part due to the spread of world terrorism and the US can no longer turn a blind eye to the fundraising there, and Bill Clinton cannot invite the IRA leaders to lunch in the White House anymore.

What is ironic is that Londoners had the largest march ever against the war in Iraq and most support the Palestinian cause yet these sociapaths kill them by these dreadful acts.

[Two Cent Charlie on 21.07.05 at 20:45]

Bill,

Sociopath is the right word but it still doesn't seem sinister enough for what these people have going.

The Europa must have been an aweful experience.

Yes, it would be pretty hard to explain if the US still openly supported the IRA. Just goes to show that Sinn Fein cannot distance itself enough.

As much as the current Terrorists should really be trying to further their goals through political avenues I really don't think they care about that. It scares me to think that these people are actually looking to create an all out war between religions.
There cannot be any room on earth for anyone who is not Muslim.

As Extreme an agenda as could be.

What if we all just became Muslims. That would screw them up. Nah. They'd just come up with some other reason to kill people.

[Steve Moffat on 21.07.05 at 21:33]

They are not sociopaths, that's a very common mistake most people make. The ASS****S that preach and brainwash these poor ignorants sods are the sociopaths.

[Bill Cook on 21.07.05 at 22:04]

Steve,

True enough,

However what name do we give to those who allow them to do that instead of removing the cancer before it spreads ?

The first rule of survival is to recognise your enemy and treat him accordingly, no ?

[Bill Cook on 23.07.05 at 07:06]

Two cents

Most people who are knowledgable see no differece between the Sinn Fein leadership and the IRA ie Gerry Adams was an IRA cell leader and was imprisoned for his activities,its possible he went all evangelical but if one looks into both his and McGuinnesses eyes you will see the truth.Ergo the leaders of both orgs are one and the same in my op.

The current situation with shoot to kill is not new.
The IRA sent a trio to blow up the army post in Gibralta led by Moira Farrell a convicted cell leader and who led this trio.

They were followed and shot by the SAS when Thatcher was in charge, and bitterly condemned by the US due to the large Irish political influence in there.

They were found to be unarmed but when followed by SAS they realised they were caught and panicked but the SAS shot all of them.

Their white ford cortina was later found with a load of Semtex.

In the Europa hotel I took it upon myself to get out by going down the laundry chute and left. The actual bomb went off nearby.