Sympathies and condolences to all those affected in this horrific tragedy. Very Sad.

“Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe” - retarded barbarians. What the hell kind of name is this? Nothing better can be expected I guess. Hope the british law enforcement gets their hands on these low lives.

why do these Muslim groups do this? don't they care that their bombs affect innocent Muslims too?

fucking kill these asshole terrorists.

In complete honesty, I can't tell what weighs more right now: sadness for England or the raw hatred of the bastards who did this.

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone... check out this Reuters report from over a year ago:

LISBON (Reuters 4/18/2004) - Several Islamic militant
groups are preparing attacks on London, making such a
strike unavoidable, a radical Muslim cleric said in an
interview with a Portuguese magazine.

"It's inevitable. Because several (attacks) are
being prepared by several groups," Sheikh Omar Bakri
Muhammad told Lisbon's Publica magazine from London,
where he is based.

One "very well organised" group in London calling
itself al Qaeda Europe "has a great appeal for young
Muslims", he said. "I know that they are ready to
launch a big operation."

London police said they were not prepared to
discuss the claims, but the country's most senior
police officer, Sir John Stevens, has previously said
that an attack on the capital was inevitable.

The firebrand cleric, who has outraged moderate
Muslims and non-Muslims alike with his uncompromising
views, gave no further details.

Asked if a British Muslim was allowed to carry out
a "terrorist attempt" in a foreign country, Muhammad
said "That is another story."

He added: "We don't make a distinction between
civilians and non-civilians, innocents and
non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers.
And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no
sanctity."

Bakri is, sad to say, on firm ground in Islamic
theology and law on that one.

It was important to see accusations of terrorism
in their proper context, he said.

"If we give money to needy women and children,
they say they are the families of terrorists. But
where do the terrorists come from? Zimbabwe? No. They
are people from here. And they are our brothers, the
terrorists."

"The British also are terrorists, in
Iraq...Terrorism is the law of the 21st century. It's
legitimate."

Sheikh Bakri Muhammad said he had mixed feelings
about the possible effect of his comments. "In a
certain way I regret that, because the first thing the
government will do is deport me, myself and my
family," he said.

GROUP PRAISED SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS

The Syrian-born cleric heads the al Muhajiroun
group, which has praised the September 11, 2001,
attacks on the United States and the al Qaeda militant
network blamed for them.

He told Publica in the interview published on
Sunday. there were several "freelance" militant groups
in Europe, such as al Qaeda London, prepared to launch
attacks similar to those carried out by the al Qaeda
network.

Four British men and a teenager appeared in court
in Britain last week charged with plotting a bombing
after being arrested in the country's biggest
anti-terror raids since the September 11 attacks.

The men, all of Pakistani origin, were arrested on
March 30 in raids which uncovered 600 kg (1,300 lb) of
ammonium nitrate, a fertiliser that can be used in
bomb making.

Asked about his comments that he wanted to have
the banner of Islam at 10 Downing Street, the prime
minister's residence, Muhammad said, "Yes, it's my
dream. I believe one day that is going to happen.
Because this is my country, I like living here."

"I've been arrested 16 times. And 16 times freed,
because they have nothing against me. These are the
contradictions of laws made by man. If they believe in
democracy, who are they afraid of? Let Omar Bakri
benefit from democracy!"

Leading a sort of James-Bondy-but-'extremist muslim' lifestyle with lots of sneaking around and secret passwords and high explosives and Manichaean struggles between the collosal forces of Good and Evil is so much more fun than the actual process of creating goodness, justice and peace in the world, which lie in the small struggles of everyday life.

"why do these Muslim groups do this? don't they care that their bombs affect innocent Muslims too?"

That's what I don't get -- Aldgate is the Bangladeshi area of town, and Edgware Road is the Arab section. If al-Qaeda wanted to nail some whitey kaffirs, there were better places to do it.

Read something on metafilter saying that people had supposedly been diverted away from Bank station as early as 6:30 this morning due to security alerts, but it wasn't in the news. What does that mean? The TV news is STILL freaking useless -- were these packaged bombs left on seats? Suicide bombers? I'm assuming the forensics teams won't sleep for another week or two trying to figure it all out.

It's weird, I'm American but this leaves me more shaken than 9/11, since I was in SF at the time and we all felt very detached from the insanity far away in NYC. But this was like, ONE TUBE STOP AWAY from me, and all these people being airlifted and rushed into the hospital that I work behind. *shudder*

Anna,
I understand this website caters to and tells most stories from a 'brown perspective'.
However obsessively focussing on a 'brown' angle in an otherwise serious and sad story might be pushing it a little.
Sorry for picking on you though. I was at a different website and people there were lamenting the Euro-centric coverage in the American Media. Now that might be very relevant and it is a fact that the bomb blast in UK gets more coverage than if an attack of the same magnitude by the same people happened in Delhi.
However I think we sometimes need to let go of race, religion, color, ethnicity and color issues and just focus on the 'human' angle of a story.

obsessively focussing on a 'brown' angle in an otherwise serious and sad story might be pushing it a little.

Al, I agree with you, but someone has to address the potential fallout after a horrific attack on "western democracy" like this one. There are millions of us of all colors, nationalities and shapes who consider it a human tragedy. But, in this day and age of Little Nickys and post-attack eye-for-an-eye witchhunts, I cannot help but hunker down for the impending verbal and, worse, physical attacks on England's copious Arab and Asian residents. My heart goes out to future innocent victims, too.

Al Mujahid: In Anna's defense (not that she asked my white butt) ;) I think it's good for SM to bring out the brown angle, partly because I think much of the world doesn't realize just how damn brown (and black, and Eastern European, and everything else) London is. Tower Hamlets (where Aldgate East is) is one of two boroughs in London where whites are soon to be outnumbered. Only 60% of London is "white British," but do you think most outsiders know that? So something like a terrorist attack here is bound to affect loads of non-whites, when we all know that deaths (and kidnappings, and what-have-you) of whites in the western world get the most media attention. Yes, this is a human story, but SM is a brown blog so they can say what they want, and have people like you and me say what we want down here. :)

You know I think it could really be the frogs behind this attack. ;)

Al,

I'm fairly sure that SM tells ALL stories from a brown perspective...that's why we're "sepia".

I don't think I was "obsessive" at all, just relevant. You can find the "regular perspective" at a thousand other blogs and websites. We are not a paper of record. We just write what we think and feel. I'm sorry that you felt I was "pushing it a little". :(

I worked very hard to be sensitive, honest and true. SM isn't journalism and never claimed to be. If we were journies, I wouldn't be allowed to give a shout-out to a much-loved commenter like PB. I thought it was obvious from my words here and in a dozen other places, but I assure you of the following-- my heart is with all of London, not just the city's denizens who resemble me.

I think Abhi's point is worth repeating;

It struck me because its plain to see that brown people are the victims too, which often isn’t apparent to the general public.

P.S. In case she didn't make it obvious, Laura is white. ;) See? We're not TOTALLY brown.

:+:

I don't mind discussing whether or not SM should've covered the London bombings from this angle, but I'm somewhat hesitant to do that here. It just doesn't feel appropriate. Al Mujahid, if you'd like, I'm happy to open a thread on one of my personal sites, since I'm the one you were addressing.

My cousin lives in London with his wife and son. I spoke to him this AM and he was just horrified. Just imagine if this happened in your town - if you're in New York, this already did.

Imagine if you lived in Rahmadi, Tikrit, Baghdad - and your town was just flattened, your home leveled, your family members killed - or say in the case of Fallujah - your town was razed by bombs for days because some private contractors got lost and were killed by the local mob. Wouldn't the emotions be along the lines of what LOVIN said: "fucking kill these asshole terrorists,"
even if you were a peacenik prior to the attacks?

Going into Iraq has not made London safer. As many on the Left said prior to the attack and occupation of Iraq - it will lead to more terrorism and more attacks. The framing in America from the mainstream press that this is akin to World War II-era bombings is a cheap attempt at symbolism. Can anyone argue that Al Queda is as powerful as Nazi-era Germany?

Why do innocent people have to die for the mistakes and greed of "leaders" such as Blair and Bush? How much longer will this last?

why do these Muslim groups do this? don't they care that their bombs affect innocent Muslims too?

The Muslim groups do this because the land they are targeting is a kaffir land where there are large numbers of Crusaders (Christians), Zionists (Jews), polytheists (Hindus), idol worshippers (Hindus) or Muslims who are working for/with the aforementioned or those who are not pious enough for them etc.

I must confess that I am taken aback by the implication in your statement that if no innocent Muslims were killed, it would be okay to conduct such attacks. Do tell me that that is not your pov.

Slightly OT and inappropriate perhaps but Al M: I think your email made Andrew Sullivan's blog.

Isn't London's downtown blanketed with security cam coverage? I hope that will give some clues to the perps.

Slightly OT and inappropriate perhaps but Al M: I think your email made Andrew Sullivan's blog.

yes, al mujahid, did you send it to him? complete with the last line he prints? otherwise something funny is going on.

peace

If you want to get a basic understanding of Muslim life and politics in the UK, you can do no better than starting with this...I heard it on KCRW here in Los Angeles and was mesmerized. The fact that pregnancy is highest among teens of "sepia" skin tone was a stunning fact; the issues here go well beyond what we can comprehend here in America.

http://www.kcrw.org/cgi-bin/db/kcrw.pl?show_code=ot&air_date=7/7/05&tmplt_type=show

Going into Iraq has not made London safer. As many on the Left said prior to the attack and occupation of Iraq - it will lead to more terrorism and more attacks. The framing in America from the mainstream press that this is akin to World War II-era bombings is a cheap attempt at symbolism. Can anyone argue that Al Queda is as powerful as Nazi-era Germany?

Why do innocent people have to die for the mistakes and greed of "leaders" such as Blair and Bush? How much longer will this last?

These fools would have attacked even if nobody touched Iraq. Iraq provides a convenient excuse; they would have easily cited something else to "rationalize" their terroristic actions. Simply put, they aim to destroy the West.

Interesting that Al-Qaeda struck New York when Bush was clearly pro-isolationist at the time.

"I must confess that I am taken aback by the implication in your statement that if no innocent Muslims were killed, it would be okay to conduct such attacks. Do tell me that that is not your pov."

I'm sorry you inferred that from my statement. I'm deeply saddened by the attack I'm just trying to make sense of something so senseless. Even if no Muslims were killed, innocent Muslims would be affected in other ways such as a backlash. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is that if these so called pious Muslims bombers are so into Islam one would think they would care about the impact on other Islam believers. We already know they don't give a damn about Kaffir non-believers, but you would think that they would care what happens to other Muslims. But these Islamic terrorists dont give a damn about anyone, not even other Muslims.

Going into Iraq has not made London safer. As many on the Left said prior to the attack and occupation of Iraq - it will lead to more terrorism and more attacks. The framing in America from the mainstream press that this is akin to World War II-era bombings is a cheap attempt at symbolism. Can anyone argue that Al Queda is as powerful as Nazi-era Germany?

This isn't BUSH bashing - these bombings are direct results of POLICY goals pursued by Blair and BUSH. This result was predicted.

THE PRESIDENT: "We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities. (Applause.)"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041025-4.html
What happened to failed goal #2369 from the Bush Administration?

The simple fact is that IRAQ has NOTHING to do with the WAR ON TERRORISM except to perpetuate terrorism till it leads to mutual oblivion. You're telling me there is no method to prosecute this WAR except with more weapons and more bloodshed?

We as a Western society haven't even discussed the economic and social conditions that lead to terrorism - and until we as a society demand our leaders tackle terrorism at the root core with sensible policies - we will continue to face attacks like this, with all the obligatory "it's just so sad" until you and I are the ones who end up dead.

The whole WOT has turned into a money making opportunity for the Military-Industrial complex,and a rhetorical TOOL to bash over the heads of Americans to explain away deficts and a boat load of other policy failures. Where is the progress - global TERRORISM has been on the rise since 2001, not DECREASED.

U.S. reports major increase in worldwide terrorism
http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1002

Where is Eric Cartman when you need him to deal with hippies ;-). Ok truthmissle, these WOT discussions will have to wait for another time. This is not the place for dredge up all that. I guess you probably feel Saddam and mediaeval repressive mid-east regimes have nothing to do with the rise of terrorism and that terrorism sprung fully-formed on Sept 11, 2001.

You're telling me there is no method to prosecute this WAR except with more weapons and more bloodshed?

yes, al mujahid, did you send it to him? complete with the last line he prints? otherwise something funny is going on.

Yea this statement is doing the rounds today. I dont know who sent the email to Andrew. I also saw it posted at www.mwu.com ( a progressive muslim website)
No, I did not write the last line.

Hey folks. . gotta run for a week so this is quicky. . thanks Anna for a beautiful post . . I was trying to remember which Mutineers were Brit. . .glad Laura and hers are safe . .

I'm not remotely surprised the bastards didn't care they were near a mosque. If you don't subscribe to their exact same "theology"* and psuedo-religious political outlook, they don't think you're a real Muslim anyway. I mean, hello---Baghdad is full of Muslims. So was Yemen. So was Tanzania and Kenya. Several Muslims died in the WTC, including a Pakistani-American boy who wanted to rescue people. This isn't against the kaffirs. This isn't about Islam. This is against anyone who isn't part of their ugly gang.

*I almost feel bad using a word that means "Studying God" as possessed by them. . .

... Saddam and mediaeval repressive mid-east regimes...

Ah, there's the central elision writ small. Thanks for this.

The vanilla tinpot dictator, secular Iraq had jackshit to do with A-Q. We're kissing the asses of Saudi and Pakistan right now, which are the A-Q strongholds.

Imagine if you lived in Rahmadi, Tikrit, Baghdad - and your town was just flattened, your home leveled, your family members killed - or say in the case of Fallujah - your town was razed by bombs for days because some private contractors got lost and were killed by the local mob. Wouldn't the emotions be along the lines of what LOVIN said: "fucking kill these asshole terrorists,"

Truthmissle, just to point out, those contractors were not killed by a 'mob'. The pictures showing the mob was after those guys were killed. It was a well coordinated ambush that was quick and deadly. The men were killed in their cars before the 'show' part began. Zarqawi was looking for a fight to begin with, he chose Iraq as his operation center rather than some other place. It isn't the United States for sure.

Marine Corps had a different strategy where they planned to let Recon Marines and Force Recon units do the 'hunting' in a clandestine selective fashion. Leadership on both (Dems and Repubs) forced intereference with the 'leveling'.

Another point: Heathrow was a target during the 9-11 attacks but later scratched. So if AQ did go through with their attacks then (before going into Iraq), the reason must have been some oil or old colonial gripe.

Terrorists are fascists, not muslims, not hindus, not christians, not whatevers but Fascists. Going into Iraq and letting the military execute the way it wanted to (high intesity, low visiblilty counter insurgency operations) was pushed over by the administration that got caught up in the 'visuals' and public propoganda war that backfired on them BAD.

No one 'causes' more terrorists. Fallujah was attacked the first time with snipers at athe forefront after the contractors were killed. Insurgents were on the run and then guess what? Administration interefered just when they guys were almost finished. Fallujah II was the result and the town was leveled.

Going into Iraq has not made London safer. As many on the Left said prior to the attack and occupation of Iraq - it will lead to more terrorism and more attacks. The framing in America from the mainstream press that this is akin to World War II-era bombings is a cheap attempt at symbolism. Can anyone argue that Al Queda is as powerful as Nazi-era Germany?

AQ has the initiative and this hitting them lightly, then hitting back too hard which the administration is making the military do is seriously messing it up. If you let the military go, let them do their job. They best know how to execute the strategy when the problem is smaller, when you give them breathing room and then go back in, you force the military into its only option of overwhelming force.

A terrorist takes a potshot at you, you kill them. A terrorist throws a grenade at you, you kill them. A terrorist decides to blow a building up, you hunt them down and kill them. That is one side of the coin. When you keep giving them breathing room to maneuver, you only swell their ranks up. The other side it to ensure that whatever you say remains credible (If we will help you, we mean it. If we promise you X, we follow through)

Why do innocent people have to die for the mistakes and greed of "leaders" such as Blair and Bush? How much longer will this last?

Well lets see, 9-11 wasn't something that Bush and Blair did. The fight will last as long as the terrorists want it to. Now if Bush just lets the people who know better do their jobs, it would be quicker too instead of trying to score points with the American pubic who wants updates every second.

The reality is no matter how big walls you put up around the country it is not terrorist proof. The only way to get rid of them is to kill them and get to them first. Most security experts have said that Europe has a greater potential for terrorist activities for many reasons. It was only a matter of time GB got hit (either the cancelled 9-11 plot, or today) they already had their eyes set on the place. It wasn't because of Iraq. If we didn't go into Iraq, the reason would be Afghanistan, if we never went into Afghanistan then its the presence of Americans in Saudi, if it isnt that then its support of Israel. The reasons keep changing, the fascists remain the same.

The British, compared to the Americans, have operated in a much smarter manner (political leadership). Their area of operations in Iraq (Basra) has seen little problems, why? The Politicians have stayed out of the fray and it isn't the sunni triangle where Syria is pumping in people. The Brits have historically been much more rutheless to terrorists too by letting the SAS go after groups and kill them.

I am sure SAS units are gearing up as we discuss this issue.

For those in the hurt in GB: I have not faced pain such as yours, therefore cannot understand the depth of hurt. However, I can pray and hope for your speedy recovery, peace for the departed, and Godspeed to those who are hunting these cowards down.

We're kissing the asses of Saudi and Pakistan right now, which are the A-Q strongholds.

On the surface we can sing kumbaya, but under it special ops and CIA should have been given the green light eons ago. Wherever there are terroists, you kill them. Saudi is one thing, but the true nexus in the last 20 years has always been Pakistan. The places where folks go to convert themselves into 'terrorists" with ISI training them. Initially when Musharraf decided to cooperate and we decided to let him take care of business. Time has come up. We don't need to push Musharaff out as much as just do what he can't ourselves. In the long run, both Saudi and Pakistan need to move to democracies.

I haven't read this book, but its on my list. It comes well recommended.
Understanding Terror Networks

As an Indian-American who lived (and lives) blocks away from the former World Trade Center, today's tragic attack in London leaves me conflicted.

I HATED the stares on the streets I received after the 9/11 attacks (after all, to the ignorant, our brown skins appear more "Arab" than actual Arabs, many of whom look fairly "white"). This being said, clearly the powers that be have aligned themselves with evil people like the Saudi royal family and GENERAL Musharraf. This is not condoning prejudice towards Arabs/Muslims, i just am expressing my frustrations.

End of the day - Bush et al are attacking the wrong parties, per economic/power interests, and we will see more of this tragedy.

I hate religion in general, my parents' dear Hinduism included - but this particular abuse of Islam is worst of all on the current world stage.

Where will it all end??????

No one 'causes' more terrorists.

Right now, blaming this attack squarely on Bush and Blair is like blaming the rape victim for wearing revealing clothes. It is not appropriate at this time. Condolences to the family of anyone involved who is reading this.

However going forward we do have to think about causalities and probabilities. Truthmissle is dead on. Inflaming the middle east with phony baloney wars is NOT the smart thing to do to stay safe. Yes, kill the terrorists as Gujudude said. That means training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan (which amazingly were untouched until post 911, even though the US knew their locations). It does NOT mean destroy schools, homes, people in Iraq and Palestine, or pharmaceutical labs in Sudan.

It is not just about "they hate our freedom, they hate our lack of religious asceticism, they hate our wealth"...I mean there is a reason why Canada and Sweden never have terrorist attacks like this. Both countries are relatively rich, both are better places to live than the US according to the UN, and Sweden has something like a 90% premarital sex rate and the highest teenage pregnancy rate (point being, it is more "western" and "corrupt" than the US).

It may feel good to spit pure venom at the middle east or Islam for doing this, but it is not fair and also it is not useful in averting future strikes. Conservatives may think that people who oppose the war are weak-willed traitors, but in many ways opposing military unilateralism and the demise of international diplomacy is one of the best things we can do to protect ourselves. It is a truly patriotic act.

"Vurdilife" speaks the truth - but do NOT let Bush's friends (saudi, paki, etc.) off the hook. State sanctioned wahabi (or otherwise) Islam = death.

There needs to be a homegrown group of Muslims ready to take up arms against all the fascist fanatical terrorist Muslim fucks. Until then stop worrying about an egg or two or racial epithets being thrown in your face.

Even before this event, the UK routinely featured numerous events of race and religion-based "paki bashing" (I didnt make that phrase up). It is only going to get worse now unfortunately, and people have every right to oppose any such backlash. Your anger is understandable but misdirected.

I agree with you GujuDude - when we as a nation encounter TERRORISTS, we SHOULD kill them. But what to do when we have a political system that is benevolent to Saudi Arabia's Royal family, kept in check by Wahabists - who are then funding these extremists groups?

Go attack IRAQ!? ...A nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to the United States.

Iraq would be better off today with Saddam in power - obviously the sanctions and no-fly zones were working to keep Saddam toothless and gas prices UNDER $60. We'd have 1700 more troops hunting down Bin Laden and any other Fundamentalist cleric recruiting naive young men and women.

We also both agree that what has been done so far in the name of the US and UK has been an absolutely incompetent disaster rife with greed, corruption, and blatant war profiteering.

And Babloo - you mention "repressive mid-east regimes," but the first thing that comes to your mind is IRAQ? Are you serious? Saudi Arabia and Pakistan don't ring a bell?
Name one thing in the past 4 years this Administration and their propaganda units have got CORRECT on anything to do with the WOT?

What needs to be done is simple - GO AFTER THE TERRORISTS, and STOP putting the profits of the War-Industry ahead of the safety and security of the PEOPLE of the Western world.

We just have craven, weak, corrupt leadership that hasn't done a damn thing right since 9/11. And innocent people will continue to pay the price until we realize this.

Vurdlife:

I will be honest, I supported the war in Iraq. But its execution makes me cringe, really bad.

From a logical standpoint, you have a valid argument. Let me see if I can explain my viewpoint properly in this forum. Lets take the primary nodes of terrorist activities right now.

Pakistan and Saudi/Syria.

AQ's spiritual support comes from Saudi, their training was conducted in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Lets throw in Iraq in the mix. Iraq is next door to Saudi, unfriendly leadership, with a majority population that despises its leader. It is the only ARAB country with a sunni minority and a population in general that supports the overthrow of Saddam.

Afghanistan is next door to Pakistan and was the primary breeding ground with Pakistan as its handler, so to speak.

The United States had an opportunity to put a footprint in both places and force change. Also, this has drawn jihadists to said locations.

PROBLEM here has been that leadership, which initially looked like it will keep its eye on the ball (reducing terrorists via killing them and pushing for reforms) half assed it for political reasons. They underestimated the enemy's resoucefulness and intelligence. I can write a whole paper on how "The idea was right, but what they built was completely ass backwards"

I am hopeful Iraq will turn around despite the mistakes made, primarily because 75-80% of the population isn't even sunni, and many braved difficult conditions to come out and vote. Also the Iraqi sunnis there aren't the core violent group, with foreign jihadists/baathists channeled in from Syria consituting the main fighting force.

It would be close to impossible to go after Saudi and Pakistan with a military solution. For special ops and CIA to operate, they need strong logistical support from neigboring countries (Enter Iraq and Afghanistan).

Saudi is currently ringed by satellite nations where US military/Allies have set shop up. Pakistan is wedged between US/Afghan forces in the west, India in the east (with escalating ties between US and India).

Question is, will leadership (or is there any leader) capable enough to go for the jugular of terrorist havens without pandering to dictators, public, leftist or rightist ideology when the time comes?

With regards to Canada and Sweden: terrorists dont care about them. Hitting them provides no benefit to them. By the way, Canada and Mexico are seen as gateways into the US. Security services consider both places to have cells in hiding bidding their time to launch at the US.

It may feel good to spit pure venom at the middle east or Islam for doing this, but it is not fair and also it is not useful in averting future strikes.

Agreed. I don't think people who oppose the war are weak willed. I think the knee jerk peaceniks who don't want us to lift a finger in violence are naive (For example protests against operations in Afghanistan). Terrorists don't use our logic, they use theirs and its murderous.

We also both agree that what has been done so far in the name of the US and UK has been an absolutely incompetent disaster rife with greed, corruption, and blatant war profiteering.

Go attack IRAQ!? ...A nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to the United States.

Another quick point: the $60 barrel oil is not because of the war (though some price can be added, not the dramatic increase), its because of the refusal of mega gas corporations to invest in refining capability. Supply isn't actually that bad, its the fact that refineries are running past max capacity and a huge surge in Chinese oil imports.

Oil companies are making a killing because they are making top dollar refining stuff. Hell, if we wanted to open up our own oil, California (yes cali) has enough to seriously cut down our dependence. But is there anywhere to refine it? Not really.

We just have craven, weak, corrupt leadership that hasn't done a damn thing right since 9/11. And innocent people will continue to pay the price until we realize this.

Ok truthmissle, these WOT discussions will have to wait for another time

We need to not be afraid to speak our minds and think freely out of fear of breaking from the publicly sanctioned way of dealing with events like this. It's not the worst thing in the world to challenge bounds of decency in conversation when thousands of people are being killed in different places with our implied consent.

The media coverage on the mainstream U.S. news channels I was watching (I think it was CNN or MSNBC, but I can't remember) and on the BBC were noticeably different (to our disadvantage in the U.S.). Even expressions of condolences and resistance to events like this are colored by political overtones. Compare George Bush:

...the contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill — those who have got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks.

The war on terror goes on...

We will find them, we will bring them to justice, and at the same time, we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate.

to Ken Livingstone:

I want to say one thing specifically to the world today. This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at presidents or prime ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion or whatever.

That isn't an ideology, it isn't even a perverted faith, it is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder...

Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.

I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.

In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.

They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.

We should probably pay attention to who's spinning, how, and for what purposes, rather than turning our brains off.

Gujudude, I think you're paying too much attention to state sponsorship and not enough to other factors in your understanding of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. It's probably more important than I recognize, but I don't think it gets you to the crux of the matter.

In my highly uninformed opnion, there are a lot of other factors, including: what happens to young, privileged men with a sense of entitlement when the societies they live in don't give them a way to move up; culture shock, xenophobia, and racial prejudice experienced by the same men when they go to Western countries; the effects of torture by regimes like Egypt on the mentalities of Islamic fundamentalists (Turkey has Islamic fundamenalists too, but you don't often hear about Turkish Islamic fundamentalist terrorism against White Christian wealthy country targets); the increased capacity for largescale violence by small groups or networks of people when you have cheaper technology, more open movement of people and money, etc.; social factors like overpopulation and lack of women's education (or men's for that matter); and the prevalence of too much realpolitik and not enough idealism in Cold War foreign policy (on both sides).

I interviewed Tariq Ali last year and he said "homegrown" Islamic fundamentalism was on the rise in Western society. His feeling is that Muslim kids in Europe DEFINE themselves by their religion in a way that kids in Muslim-dominated countries don't. By feeling under seige by the mainstream society, they isolate themselves and become radical, in opposition to everything around them. I've also heard that a lot of this fundamentalism is fuelled by illiterate village clerics who've come over. I wonder if immigration clamps down (apparently the UK is going to move to a points-based system like Canada and Australia, and mostly let in people with needed professional skills) on these kinds of weirdbeards, will Muslims here finally start integrating? Or is the problem too deep-rooted? I dunno. The Bangladeshi/Pakistani Muslims here certainly make more noise than the Turkish or Middle Eastern ones.

How can these disenchanted young men move up in society if they refuse to integrate? Last fall I was working privately with someone who happened to work in an Islamic foundation, and his superiors demanded I (a white atheist with deep disgust for all religion) wear a headscarf. I refused for ages, as it wasn't a mosque and I don't wear provocative clothing anyway, and they told him I couldn't come in any more unless I did. I was, and still am, furious about this violation of my rights, and I suppose veiled girls feel the same way if they're forced to remove theirs, but it was an issue of capitulating to the "dominant culture" (in my case, a Muslim office) to achieve another unrelated goal. Should Muslims do the same here? Brown Ismaili Muslims who escaped Africa in the '70s were explicitly instructed by their imams to wear miniskirts, get trendy hairstyles and do everything possible to integrate into English society, and they are now very successful. British Bangladeshi schoolkids, on the other hand, are currently the worst-performing group of all. I dunno, what will clam down this clash of values and cultures?

for another brown viewpoint on the attacks, alternet has this:

Dispatch from London by Sandip Roy

(p.s., I meant calm on that last line, not clam) ;)

Shabbs

What a shameful stick-your-head in the sand idiot you are. Its time to face up to the fact that there are some Muslims out there who really are psychopathic bastards.

Anyway, here is why the Brits are the funniest and the best, this is from a brilliant thread of the Brits sticking their middle finger up to the terrorist bastards (and their useful idiot apologist conspiracy theory buffoons like Shabbs) with their indomitable un-crushable blitz spirit:

Al Qaeda say: 'Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters.' Bitch, please. Osama, you live in a fucking cave. You're like an evil Batman or something. No wonder you have a thing for blowing up commuters, because you will never commute because you live in a cave. You see transport, and you are filled with rage, because you? Live in a cave. You could try forming a political wing to... oh, wait, you can't because YOU LIVE IN A CAVE. Twat.

Read it all here.

Laura said

Tariq Ali ... said "homegrown" Islamic fundamentalism was on the rise in Western society. His feeling is that Muslim kids in Europe DEFINE themselves by their religion in a way that kids in Muslim-dominated countries don't. By feeling under seige by the mainstream society, they isolate themselves and become radical, in opposition to everything around them.

Kids in America define themselves as Muslim as well. As a Pakistani foreign student once said (probably on the way back from a pub) -- "Americans just haven't gotten over being Muslim".

(In the USA at least, the creation of a Muslim 'ethnicity' doesn't really stem from a feeling of being under siege, nor does it lead to violence.)

Thebit, a British Muslim, has a good take on the affair.

This is about 'homegrown Islamic fundamentalism' and the clash of values. Having done some academic work on the 'cultural gap' between migrant communities and their host communities, a few thoughts.

First, extensive anthropological studies have shown that the 'clash' between cultures is often mis-represented. e.g. if a british muslim parent does not want his child to stay out late, or dress in a certain way, then it's a 'cultural question'. if a white parent living next door is worried about what time his son gets home and the clothes his daughter is wearing, then it's a 'generational gap'. so let's be very careful of what we define as a 'cultural' clash. this is not to say that such a clash does not exist, but let us also accept that the 'them' versus 'us' divide has been distorted in many ways. not least by the media. of course there are many disaffected young people in britain- black, brown, white, mixed etc. many of them are poor. so why do some turn to religion, others turn to drugs and some become criminals and others become terrorists? how thin is the dividing line in reality?

Having said that, I'm more ambivalent on the question of headscarf wearing and so on. See, for instance, if I enter a temple or a church or a gurdwara in India, I'm expected to cover my head. I will happily do so. It would be a sign of disrespect not to do so. The question we must ask is this: when does 'respecting difference' through outward symbols become more than that- when does it become coercion, when does it become an imposed dress code, and so on? I have no answers, I'm merely throwing these thoughts out.

One thing that I have noticed in the past day is how the reported death toll in the London attacks has been rising (from 4 to 30 to 37 to 50, now), as opposed to 9/11 when the initial toll was reported to be over 6000, and it was finally toned down to around 1700 or 1800 after a few weeks, if I recall correctly. Even today, I know that many believe that the final toll from the attack is around 4000.

Part of this is the nature and uncertainty of the two tragedies, I suppose, but the British are also coping with unknowns like still trying to reach probably dead people in a train. While a death toll of 1700 as opposed to 4000 or 6000 does not make 9/11 more acceptable or less of a catastrophe, I cannot help wondering, though, whether the differing statistics are a consequence of a less hysterical media, or a more responsible government machinery, or both. Or maybe, they are just an artifact.

I do not claim to understand the reasons from across the Atlantic, but have the journalists/writers/media folks (I am not any of these, just a regular computer geek who does not usually concoct conspiracy theories) in this community and across the pond have any opinions on this?

P.S: The sights that await the police as they go into these day old trains must be horrid. Personally, the most haunting images from 9/11 are of the bodies descending almost gracefully along the burning buildings as people leaped off the towers to avoid a fiery end.

One correction to my comment #43 - the final death toll in 9/11 is 2752. Sorry about that.

when does 'respecting difference' through outward symbols become more than that

That's what I have a problem with as well. If I behave in an otherwise respectful manner to you, what does the outward symbol mean? It REALLY freaking annoys me that some Muslims consider hair to be sexually arousing and therefore in need of cover lest the men lose control. I feel like, in the 21st century, living in the west, it should be perfectly acceptable for me to show "respect" in other ways -- listening politely, dressing in a professional manner, etc. These are things I do in my own workplace, and am happy to do in a Muslim office.

I have no answers either. Clothing is always used to mark yourself as a member of a "tribe" (goth, hippie, straightedge, Muslim, whatever) so I can kind of see why schools try to stamp out this divisiveness by the use of uniforms. It's an emotional issue, and dressing differently than the mainstream enrages some people to violence. But really it's the thinking behind the dress and what it represents. I think for a lot of Brits, seeing a woman in a hijab only brings to mind angry thoughts of women's oppression, refusal to integrate (and, often, learn English), and otherwise a big "f**k you" to the British way of life. Is this the same as punks in the '70s? I dunno.

Take the war back to them....

When Commies were there these M*^$F~&%$IN Virgin lovin terrorists were really kept busy. They didn't care they just blew them all up... There was nobody who cared until we got involved.

Why not start it all over with a blind eye towards "Palestine", "Russia", "Indoneasia" etc so that these M*^$F~&%$IN be contained using a Zero Sum Game.

Seriously, Dakuji, I have NO IDEA what you're trying to say.

True that muslim kids in western countries are getting more radical...but to realize their "ambitions" they have to go to the best prep school for jihadism in the planet - Pukistan. They are also given generous assistantships from the dysfuntional Wahabi family scum based in Saudi. A few well-aimed Daisycutters on the Pakis and Sauds should do the trick...at least for a start...

“Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe” - retarded barbarians

Let's not underestimate the inteligence of these zealots. I personally think they've shown enough times that they are not stupid or resourceless.

From 'Gardens of Stone':
Soldier 1: "Lets go kill em all. Those fools shoot arrows at our choppers."
James Caan's character: "How can we hope to beat a people who fight choppers with arrows?".

(The contex is the Nam, of course.)

Maybe we should start getting a little concerned about why these guys do it, rather than just try and blow up their countries.

al mujahid:

yes, al mujahid, did you send it to him? complete with the last line he prints? otherwise something funny is going on.

Yea this statement is doing the rounds today. I dont know who sent the email to Andrew. I also saw it posted at www.mwu.com ( a progressive muslim website)
No, I did not write the last line.

interesting. at the mwu site as well it doesn't have the last line that andrew cites. at mwu it is posted by a certain "djcreation" in boulder, co.

all this raises a question of (sullivan's) intellectual integrity, doesn't it? where did andrew s. come up with that last line?

for those who don't know what we're talking about, mujahid's statement from much earlier in this thread:

Leading a sort of James-Bondy-but-'extremist muslim' lifestyle with lots of sneaking around and secret passwords and high explosives and Manichaean struggles between the collosal forces of Good and Evil is so much more fun than the actual process of creating goodness, justice and peace in the world, which lie in the small struggles of everyday life.

got picked up at andrew sullivan's site, under the headline "A Muslim Emails" (and no further info), and with the added sentence at the end "i am ashamed to be a muslim." -- which mujahid most definitely did not write.

so, andrew sullivan's readers are getting an unattributed statement of "shame to be a muslim," mis-using mujahid's text, and with sullivan's stamp of authority.

great!

Looks like Rome is possibly next on the list. It is not as if these Muslim fanatics are very secretive about their intentions. Just months after Bin Laden isued his "fatwa" against the Americans, the emabassies in Africa were hit. But as usual the befuddled politicians will not act. Instead, they waste their time on more useless "this is not true Islam" babblings. Till they admit that it is the other way around, there can be no victory. I doubt that will happen.

Friday July 8, 6:43 PM

Group threatens al Qaeda attacks on Rome
DUBAI (Reuters) - A group claiming links to al Qaeda threatened to attack Rome to punish Italy for supporting the United States, and praised the bomb blasts in London, a Web statement said on Friday.

The statement did not appear on Web sites normally used by Islamist militants loyal to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

"We warn Rome, the capital of infidels, that the lions of Jihad in Europe are ready to launch strong strikes against the collaborating government with the crusaders, the Americans, the enemies of God, the Prophet and Muslims," it said.

"With the help of God, a group of honourable mujahideen carried out successful attacks on three (London) underground stations and a bus," said the statement in the name of the little-known Organisation of al Qaeda - Jihad in the Arabian Peninsula.

It gave timings for each of Thursday's attacks, referring to them as "explosions", implying they were not suicide attacks, which militants normally describe as "martyrdom operations".

More than 50 people were killed in the coordinated rush-hour attacks which Britain said bore the hallmarks of al Qaeda.

Seven hundred people were also wounded when three explosions tore through crowded London underground trains within an hour and another ripped the roof off a double-decker bus.

The previously unknown Secret Group of al Qaeda - Jihad in Europe on Thursday claimed responsibility for the attacks, but British and U.S. officials said it was not clear the claim was authentic.

There was no way to verify the authenticity of Friday's statement purporting to come from an al Qaeda-linked group.

Siddhartha,
To be fair to Andrew, he probably received an email from someone and he posted the email.
Also the last line there says " As a Muslim, I am horrified by these attacks in Britain."
It doesnt exactly mean that the person is ashamed of being a Muslim.
Obviously someone emailed this to Andrew. This was also picked up by some dj from colorado on MWU.
I have also seen the same statement at a different blog too.
Such are the ways of the internet.

fair enough, al mujahid, and perhaps i was being a bit too suspicious.

Such are the ways of the internet.

true indeed, brother, true indeed. lots of unattributed, lifted, and concocted material out there. a caution for us all. i still think it was a bit rapid, to say the least, of andrew to title the post "a muslim emails" and add no elaboration or attribution.

have you read "good muslim, bad muslim" by mahmood mamdani? great stuff.

peace

Sorry, I know this is breaking from the de rigeur "we stand with you" sentiments above, but I really don't feel much about these attacks on a visceral level. Intellectually, I am sad and am disgusted that innocent civilians were murdered. But I don't feel it on a gut level.

Why should I? Because they were European? Because it could happen to me? Innocent people die everyday in very horrible ways. Innocent Iraqis who die everyday are often not "stood with."

I'm not questioning A N N A's right to be disgusted and "want to cry," but sorry, shit hits the fan everyday. Sad to see that only certain "innocent" victims deserve an outpouring of sympathy.

I thought they had a "war" on terror going on. I think in "war" opponent also strikes and sometimes is succesful in striking. So why all the dis-belief? (also isnt there a saying "All is fair in ... and war")

(also isnt there a saying "All is fair in ... and war")

you want to trot out that stupid cliche NOW? that's so appropriate. yes, it was *very fair* for innocent Londoners, many of whom were probably AGAINST the WOT to be killed. wtf?

i wonder if both of my predecessors are proud of themselves for bucking the "de rigeur" wave of sympathy for victims of terror (how dare we!). you're so rebellious and cool!

Sad to see that only certain "innocent" victims deserve an outpouring of sympathy.

writing or responding to a post like this doesn't prevent someone from feeling sympathy at other tragedies. i know that's tough to grasp, but trust me, it's true.

have you read "good muslim, bad muslim" by mahmood mamdani? great stuff.

I have though I thought some of the rhetoric in the book was over the top.
Btw mamdani is a Gujju.
Thought provoking nevertheless.

"that's so appropriate. yes, it was *very fair* for innocent Londoners, many of whom were probably AGAINST the WOT to be killed. wtf?"

what about ... "we are fighting there so we dont have to fight them at home"
there are innocents getting killed everyday in Iraq ...those who are getting killed are also against Zaraqawi and Bin-laden ... what about that??? WTF ???

Same old sh*t about ...how we are so sorry about innocent people .. so if you are sorry be sorry for %%% ALL %%% innocent people. And if you cant stand the heat get out of the sun (If you cant take casualties dont get into war)

To add to the comments from LitigationIsHot, I feel the same way. Maybe, it is because human life is less valued in India than in the west? Maybe, because the limited coverage of bigger disasters in the subcontinent galls me? (example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4645801.stm. Granted, A flood is not as apocalyptic as a culture war, but I don't see these 135+ deaths covered on the front page of the NY Times, even when it breathlessly reports on the 135 mph winds of hurricane Dennis).

Yes, I do feel sympathy for Londoners and condemn terrorists and all that. But I also sorta have to agree with the last few comments.

It is quite ridiculous when I talk to friends in England who're like, 'You don't know what it is to live in this sort of eerie scary situation etc etc'.

I wish I could remind them that I grew up in Bombay, lived through several religious riots, complete with curfew and all, and the 1993 bomb blasts which killed hundreds.

Of course, they never heard of it, it was never front-page news in any paper in the west.

Yeah, along with sympathy for Londoners, I just have a spontaneous attitude of 'Been there, done that, your turn now'. I'm sorry, I guess I'm just an evil person.

R

on a side note, I wanted to thank all of you guys- ANNA for posting the story, and every commenter; politics and world policy not being my forte, I have learned so much from the discussions on this site.

Thanks!