Jonah seems to mistake the "need for oil" for license to take it by invasion. Yes, we have an over-dependency on petroleum for our chemical and plastic industries and energy consumption, but admitting it does not necessitate justifying the invasion and conquest of Iraq. Furthermore, and I address this not to Jonah but generally, while there are many apparent and plausible causes for the invasion, one I hear too little of and think plays a bigger role than sophisticates and sophists alike consider, is that the cabal in charge of US policy _hated_ the cessation of hostilities in 1991 and have been hell-bent to "finish the job." In some ways these maniacs (ego-, megalo, and others) may simply be having it their way because they can.

I've been away and, while catching up, I notice some comments from Jonas, to which I will respond briefly. J. says : “The attacks were indeed despicable; attributing their cause to actions taken in our name certainly does not excuse the atrocities. To me, murder is murder.” Nobody here is excusing the 7-7 bombings. We do wish, however, to understand and try to explain them so as to avert future such terrible tragedies. Murder is murder. Fine. Responsible public officials do everything they can to prevent any more of their citizens from being murdered. And that will involve understanding the crime in all its many dimensions. J. continues: “Does it follow that we all share some responsibility for 50 dead Britons? I don't know. I certainly hope not, because the monsters who blew them up appeared obviously culpable themselves for their heinous crime.” Well, “it” doesn't follow from anything J. said before, but if we take “we” broadly to mean America and the United States then “it” happens to follow from an abundance of evidence, well understood by British and American authorities, suggesting that a terrible terror attack on England (most certainly London) was practically inevitable given that nation's ruling regime's agreement to go along with America's murderous, illegal, and immoral assalt on Iraq. As far as I can tell, some British authorities had already written the certain British civilian deaths off as collateral damage in advance. As I said in the original post, horrible terror attacks on American, Spanish, and British (and other) civilians are a price that the Western Imperial Warmongers are happy FOR US to pay in their quest for global hegemony. They are not even deterred by the likelihood (certainty?) of a nuclear terrorist attack occurring well within the lifetimes of many people reading this blog. Its like Chomsky says in the title to his latest major book: they value Hegemony over Survival. “The aim of the terrorists, it seems, is to shatter what remains of the Iraq war coalition (first Spain, now England). But we all must remember that the murderers will never win; the second we bow to paralyzing fear is the moment of their triumph.” Here's where Jonas needs to break down the meaning of “we.” This statement seems to assume that the readers of this blog identify with the war on Iraq and want England to stay in the so-called “Iraq war coalition.” I doubt that more than 1 in 100 readers of this blog suport that war and that coalition. I would imagine that the great majority of those readers think that the people who have ordered and conducted that war are functioning in essence as “murderers” ( for what it's worth, I consider Bush and Blair's policies to place them legitemately within the category of “murderers”). Thus, we cannot be defeated and do not surrender if that rather pathetic bought and bullied “coalition” unravels. In fact, one of the arguments that many of us made for not invading Iraq (and not joining the “coalition”) is that it would quite predictably increase the susceptibility of American, British, and many other western (and non-western) citizens to terror attacks ala 9/11, Madrid, Bali, and now London (to name just the best know tragedies resulting from the big spike in terror actions since the invasion). This does not not mean that I have adopted the position that the enemy [al Qaeda or whoever' of my enemy [Bush et al] is my friend.” Extremist murderists of bin-Laden's ilk can and will never be my friends. But does Jonas expect us to a different version of the "enemy of my enemy" by jumping into bed with Bush and Blair now because al Qaeda (or whoever) attacked London just as many of expected would happen in response to a war we opposed partly on the grounds that such terror attacks as have actually occurred would follow in its wake? Absurd. And I reserve the right to bow to fear of death (I live in an American “global city”) as a factor in determing my opposition to certain policies --- particuarly policies I happen to already hate on the grounds that they are immoral, illegal, imperialist, and racist etc. J. says “we cannot withdraw from Iraq. To do so would be disastrous, possibly as foolish as invading the country in the first place. Frankly, we're in dire need of the oil it's sitting on. We must be forthright about this. Why else would be have invaded a defenseless, pitifully poor nation that posed no real threat (conventional or WMD) to anyone in the region, much (much) less the United States? Again, withdrawal at this time cannot be an option, at least not a rational one. We have to reconstruct the country, have it able to defend itself from terrorists domestic and foreign, and have a modicum of democratic pretense before we can get out.” “We” most certainly can withdraw from Iraq. The argument is about what “we” should do, of course. Maybe the argument can be shifted in terms of defining the nature of our presence. "We" obviously owe a great debt of reconstruction and reparation to the nation and indeed to the region, which "we" have royally fucked over for many decades now. Ideally, "we" need to withdraw as imperial occupier, mass murderer-state-terrorist, and hegemon while maintaining a presence as a builder of hospitals and provider of mass economic and social assistance and humanitarian aid and much more. “We” are not a very good candidate to provide any of that given our corporate-neoliberal abandonment of our own poor and working-classes. Truth is, "we" have plenty of our own regions and communities to reconstruct and this imperial war is a big factor in the exacerbation of inequality and poverty at home. Frankly, “we” and the rest of humanity are in dire need of alternative energy resources. Modern US- and UK-led corporate Petro-capitalism and auto-/highway-driven “growth” is choking human-sustainable ecology to death and the already dramatic resulting climate changes are just a foretaste of the nightmare runaway warming scenario "we" are beginning to acknowledge in some sectors. The petro-corporate war masters atop the US state (those stucturally empowered decision-makers who lurk behind the scenery of our mythically united "we") were significantly motivated in invading Iraq by the word-systemic/geopolitical leverage that control over Middle Eastern/Iraqi oil would give them vis a vis competitor capitalist states and regions and foreign military rivals. “Our” (meaning all Americans?) alleged “need” for oil (which can and must be reduced dramatically through alternative energy and new levels of energy efficiency) is probably less of a factor than J. thinks. Jonah says, “We shouldn't muddy the argument. The main point I wish to make is that the people, whoever they are, who committed the murderous crimes of July 7 are barbarians, and justice must be done.” Well, we should muddy the argument being put forth by barbarian Bush and his murderous friends. The Orwellian totalitarianism of the Anglo-American Respectable Right (see Alex Carey, Taking the Risk Out of Democracy) thrives precisely on simplistic Manichean (black and white) arguments which identify “us” as “good” and others as “evil.” It allows for no elementary complexity, seeking to engage only the more reptilian sections of our in fact subtle and complex minds. Jonas needs to understand a key point I made in a comment on July 8th: “these guys ---- (a) Bush/Cheney et al and their ilk (b) bin-Laden et al and their ilk - are in love with one another. It's the clash of mutually reinforcing barbarisms." I'll stop.

Police hunt 'mercenary' terror gang recruited by al-Qa'ida Police and intelligence agents areinvestigating the theory that a gang of white "mercenary terrorists" was hired by al-Qa'ida to carry out last week's devastating attacks on London. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article298105.ece

In his latest article, Fisk said: "They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, out of his alliance with the United States, out of his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush -- and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives -- while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali." Last I heard the authorities don't even know who did it, and its believed to be a "home brewed" bombing. Forgiving the automatic assumption that it's Islamists, we still don't know that their intention is to "get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq". As I said before, the motive may simply be retaliation, the perpetrators knowing full well the crime may in fact increase Western violence in the ME instead of reducing it. The part about Spain "retreating" (why use the word retreat? The public thought the war was immoral and elected a government who pulled the troops out in accordance with public opinion, is that a retreat?) due to the bombing in Madrid-- I disagree with strongly. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=8262

http://amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html Prof Pape makes a convincing case for withdrawal especially in the face of such attacks. I couldnt care less whether Bush and his Neocons or his poodle lose a little face. Or if Osama can claim a victory. Disarm him properly by removing the reasons more flock to his idealogy and methods every day. I dont want anyone to wake up to another day like Thursday.[In Iraq pick any day of the week] Real decent people are dying on all sides of the world and in my insignifanct opinion Mr Street is bang on, Blair and Co do consider all our lives a price worth paying for their greed and power extension. Its beyond obscene

That is the troublesome nature of rhetoric, as you point out: the very words that can argue one point can be easily turned around to argue the opposite. Point well taken.

bwong, the central questions that remain then are 1) what are the "root causes" of terrorism? and 2) how can we "address", much less defeat them? Also, 'defining victory' can have very concrete results, if only it were attempted. The President tells us often that we must fight in Iraq until we "win", for instance, but does not define what that would entail, and to what standard we are striving. But, as you noted, Iraq is irrelevant to this discussion. There are reasonable, effective ways we can prevent terrorist attacks, without alienating the larger population of which they are a part or causing backlash. One obvious route is criminal prosecutions, but that domain is too limited. What else? It's a long-shot, but we would all be better off in the long run if we empowered the local populations to find the terrorists themselves, I suppose. They know their whereabouts better than we do, in all likelihood, but the subsequent question is of incentives: namely, what would be in it for them. Now, that's something I cannot answer, and so I delegate it to other commentators on this forum. What I do know is that terrorism cannot win unless we submit to the fear it is intended to generate, for fear is the antithesis to a democratic society; we cannot allow it to overcome our sense of reason, which is what is crucially needed to defeat terrorists.

It is necessary to address the root cause of "terroism"(in the admittedly biased sense in common usage)in the long term, not just because of self perservation, but also because of justice that has been denied to others. But in the mean time society must protect itself from attacks such as the London bombing. Within reasons I would support appropiate police action and security measures. Addressing the root causes should not entail ritualistic apologies for clear barbaric acts from Islamic terrorists. The reflexive reactions of "what about the U.S bombing Iraq" whenever the topic comes up is not always relevant to addressing the immediate crisis. Having said that, Jonas represents another extreme, with jingositic slogans like "defining victory" which in real terms means nothing. No amount of force can "make it unequivocally clear to potential Qaeda recruits that their path is one of self-destruction" if the root causes are not addressed. The Israelis tried and failed. Moreover, no amount of policing and surveiliance can prevent further attacks from determined terrorists, short of turning our countries into police states.

It's crucial to win the support of the local authorities, and the general population, in hunting down the radical Islamists who abet, condone, and/or help orchestrate terrorist attacks. But, also, we must make it unequivocally clear to potential Qaeda recruits that their path is one of self-destruction: whatever they do, they cannot win because the response will be much greater in magnitude. It must be a zero-sum game, one in which we win and they lose. But we must define victory, and not let fear sap our strength and resolve. Their terror is not an ideology, but a tactic -- a brutal, largely psychological one. This is a new opportunity to talk about what it's going to take to defeat these people, and prevent atrocities such as that of July 7 from ever happening again.

"The publicly stated goal of Osama and Al-Queda is to unify the Middle East under a new fundamentalist "Caliphate" aka. Empire." r4d20 You are correct that the Bin Ladens would not change their goals regardless what we do in the ME. But the handful of nut cases are easy to deal with as long as they are not able to build a movement around themselves. To ferment a movement requires popular support. Unjust political and economical order is a very nurturing enviroment for all kinds of extreme movements.Hitler would have been a harmless raving nut if the eco-political contradictions in post WWI Germany were diffused properly before desperate, angry people rallied behind the Nazis. Al Queda relies on a big network to carry out it its terrorist acts, not all those involved in various supporting capacities are hardline idealogues. In the same way many suicide bombers in Palestine are apaprantly tramatized and hurt individuals rather than religious fundamentalists.Quite a few acted out for personal rather than ideological reasons. Removing legitimate grievances in the ME would go a long way to isolate the extremists.Without the aiding and support from their embient societyies, the extremist are easy to deal with like common criminals.

We shouldn't muddy the argument. The main point I wish to make is that the people, whoever they are, who committed the murderous crimes of July 7 are barbarians, and justice must be done.

(r4d) "but reason they bombed London was in order to get the population to pressure the government to change it's policies. " We have no idea why "they" bombed London. And assuming it is Islamic extremists, then it may be an act of revenge or plain retaliation for the West's actions of the Middle East, with no higher goal in mind. << "Building a new, pure, muslim empire is the kind of rallying cry that will attract almost every unemployed muslim male between 13 and 30.">> This is beyond ridiculous. To group all Muslims together and say their biggest wish in life is to create an Empire....really doesn't even deserve comment. You should consider a job for talk radio -- maybe along side Alex Jones. (jonas) "But we all must remember that the murderers will never win; the second we bow to paralyzing fear is the moment of their triumph." Which murderers are you talking about? The United States who've killed over 100,000, or the yet to be indentified criminals who killed 50 in London? "Again, withdrawal at this time cannot be an option, at least not a rational one." Our presence there enables the terrorists. If the US withdraws then the extremists would have a much harder time being accepted by the population as they would have no pretense of "ending the occupation". We need a true international force headed by the UN, free from imperial interference.

"You do make a blurring between rationality of ENDS and rationality of MEANS. Christians here may be irrational in their ideology, but they are brutally rational about achieving it. I think Muslim and other terrorists are usually very similar." Not Always. The example of several of the Crusades come to mind. Whole armies marched off without adequate supplies and trusted in god to deliver them victory - most of them ended up carrion feed, but the early success of the first crusade continued to inspire them that all they needed was faith. It isn't just crusaders, you see the same commmon theme in the history of many religiously motivated forces - from the early Mujahideen in Afghanistan (they got practical quick though) to the armies of the Taipaing Heavenly Kingdom. But, yes, these are the extreme examples. One cannot count on all religious opponents being like this.

It is true, r4d20, that the ultimate aim of bin Laden is a caliphate encompassing the entire Arab world: the former Ottoman empire and North Africa, with the southern half of Spain, as well. I'm no expert, but it appears that to do that they want to overthrow the regimes standing in their way. Notably, those of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. This "endless revolution" (Trotsky's phrase, I think) would facilitate that region's reversion to the 7th century, and much would be lost -- to say the least. The present administration seems intent on "endless revolution" throughout the Middle East (and, too, the former Soviet republics). But what we're looking for is something much more concrete. But we cannot withdraw from Iraq. To do so would be disastrous, possibly as foolish as invading the country in the first place. Frankly, we're in dire need of the oil it's sitting on. We must be forthright about this. Why else would be have invaded a defenseless, pitifully poor nation that posed no real threat (conventional or WMD) to anyone in the region, much (much) less the United States? Again, withdrawal at this time cannot be an option, at least not a rational one. We have to reconstruct the country, have it able to defend itself from terrorists domestic and foreign, and have a modicum of democratic pretense before we can get out. Alas, I digress.

The publicly stated goal of Osama and Al-Queda is to unify the Middle East under a new fundamentalist "Caliphate" aka. Empire. Their purpose for driving us out of the middle east is NOT to foster true representative government in those countries - it is to weaken the governments of the countries enough to allow for their conquest by and inclusion into a new Muslim Empire. Now, the argument "being there only breeds terrorists" has merit - and is obviously true to a decent extent, as far as I am concerned. However, it would be wrong to simply assume that if we leave the middle east, Islamic terrorism will go away. That attitude discounts the input that our opponents have and pretends we can unilatterally end the fight at our discretion. Osama WANTS us to leave the middle east because he thinks it will make overthrowing the existing regimes easier. He might be wrong, but anyone who thinks the violence will end the day after a general american withdrawl is quite naive. Since Civil Wars are always the bloodiest and most savage, is there any doubt that the slaughter will escalate once Muslim turns on Muslim? Can we really discount his chances of success? Building a new, pure, muslim empire is the kind of rallying cry that will attract almost every unemployed muslim male between 13 and 30. They will flock to it like German buys/men flocked to the task of building a new, glorious, thousand year Reich.

Terrorism is a method, not an ideology. The attacks were indeed despicable; attributing their cause to actions taken in our name certainly does not excuse the atrocities. To me, murder is murder. Does it follow that we all share some responsibility for 50 dead Britons? I don't know. I certainly hope not, because the monsters who blew them up appeared obviously culpable themselves for their heinous crime. The aim of the terrorists, it seems, is to shatter what remains of the Iraq war coalition (first Spain, now England). But we all must remember that the murderers will never win; the second we bow to paralyzing fear is the moment of their triumph.

"don't think it logically follows from this that they must have an entirely different view of "reason" as "us" in the West, or that their assumptions about costs/consequences and risks/benefits must be completely alien and unintelligible to us." I did not mean that Islamic terrorists are "irrational", just that their reasoning is based off of a very different set of basic assumptions - for instance, the assumption that the Koran the word of God. Consequently, some of their actions may LOOK irrational to us, since our basic assumptions leads our reasoning process to a different outcome. In short, just because we think something was "stupid" and "only helped Bush" doesn't mean the perpetrators didn't think it would help them. In fact, frankly I think that they were planning on lots of "Its our fault because of Iraq, Palestine, etc." statements. They haven't been disappointed. Of course, just because they WANTED those sattements doesn't mean that the statements are not true, or that they idea of getting out of Iraq is wrong. How it will all work out, and who will ultimately benefit, is unforseeable - but reason they bombed London was in order to get the population to pressure the government to change it's policies. And why not any mention of the possibility that the whole thing is actually a FRENCH conspiracy in revenge for losing the Olympics :D

I think its unwise to link the Madrid bombings and Spains subsequent withdrawal from Iraq. The people of Spain (90%+) already were against the Iraq war and probably unhappy with Aznar on many other issues before the bombing ever happened. The terrorist strike could just as easily scared people enough to vote Aznar back in office (one thing I agree with r4d about, its hard to predict the consequences). Fisk said the same thing in his article. I don't agree that its true. In fact this is what Bush & Co. want people to believe. That the terror bombings in Madrid shook Spains "will". That Spain didn't withdrawal because the people believed it was immoral and wrong to be there, but simply because they were terrorized into doing so, their "will" being shakened. "'They'll kill innocent people to try to shake our will,' Bush said of terrorists. 'That's what they want to do. They'll never shake the will of the United States. We understand the stakes.'" (Bush after the Madrid bombings) http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/17/bush.terror/

1) I think Paul is on the right track. Terrorists a centuray and a half ago were already theorizing that terrorism could be used to create an excessive backlash by the government, thus further alienating the population and creating the conditions for a general revolt. While the Muslim fanatics have different goals, it is foolish not to assume that they familiarized themselves the historical roots of modern terrorism and they must have certainly been exposed to this concept and infuenced by it. 2) Arguments based on "they are not stupid enough" or "look who benefits most" are utterly worthless. First, they accord both the terrorists and our governments an almost god-like ability to forsee the consequences of their actions. Second, the results of violence are inherently unpreditable, and the statement that "they are not that stupid" is based on the assumption that they see the risks and benefits in the same way you do, and that they make the same assumptions that you do about the possible consequences. It is tempting, but foolish, to try and force THEIR actions to fit YOUR view of "reason". It is sad that so many people, who recognise the vast gulf that separates their worldview from that of Western Chrisitian Fundamentalists, seem to disregard that same gulf when it comes to Middle-Eastern Muslim Fundamentalists, and insist on trying to interpret their actions through some rationalist, humanist, intellectual perspective.

Things to look at (thanks to Omar Jabara) regarding connections between imperialist US/UK invasion of Iraq, terrorism, and (in the first item), London bombings: 1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_britain_bombings Iraq Links London Attacks to Insurgency By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer Fri Jul 8, 2005 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/22/international/middleeast/22intel.html? Iraq May Be Prime Place for Training of Militants, C.I.A. Report Concludes By DOUGLAS JEHL Published: June 22, 2005 -- The New York Times 3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told Intelligence Officials Talk Of Growing Insurgency By Dana Priest and Josh White Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, February 17, 2005; Page A01

If the London bombings were done by terrorists,they play right into the direction the anti global warming-African aid powers want public sentiment to go.I don't think terrorists are that stupid.Hello Karl.

Well, to go back to 9/11 it was significantly motivated by bin-Laden's desire to spark precisely the response he got: a major imperialist assault that has fanned the flames of Muslim extremism and recruits to the cause of overthrowing apostate and Western-controlled regimes within the Middle East and with the Saudi state as the main prize. More terror attacks, more western imperialist attack...more extremist recruits. It's a vicious circle and a dance of death and the clashing fundamentalists on both sides are digging it to death. There's some shorter term tactical motives behind the London action I'm sure but I think that broader strategy is still going on. Let's face it, these guys ---- (a) Bush/Cheney et al and their ilk (b) bin-Laden et al and their ilk ---- are in love with one another. It's the clash of mutually reinforcing barbarisms. As Bush says, "the war on terror goes on..." and on and on because key players and western decision-makers are accumulating power and wealth on the basis of it. The Cold War was to no small extent a perverse and dangerous alliance of elites on both sides ...in the name of perpetuating a state of permanent war. I think History will show this version is actually more deadly. In all decency jihadists could (but won't, the bastards) at least pick a red state target next time they go after Uncle Sam. Most of the Americans I know live in big cities, ride public transit, and hate Bush and the US Empire.

realpc : of course those are not brainless people. Bloodthirsty, right indeed. What do they achieve? Strike at the heart of the "ennemy", frightening the whole population. How will Western governments react? Get tougher! Get tougher on muslim or "muslim-like" visitors, get tougher on their own muslim population... More frustration, more anger, more recruits... And don't forget the Jihadist ideology behind it, like liberating holy sites from Western influence. Before your very eyes, you have a cooking clash of civilisation that was not to be. I mean, how does it look like that all Western countries are doing a "one-minute silence" for the London victims when for Iraqi or Afghan people (or people in Somalia, or in Sudan, when the US bomb a chemical factory making desperately need drugs), this would be business as usual? Is really a life in the south worth a life in the North? Wake the fuck up! Or are we going to keep on paying for our "leaders"' mistakes???

As you say, these terrorists are only increasing the resolve of the "militant right-wing US gov." What I can't understand is what they hope to accomplish. Is it simply the joy of creating chaos in the world? Are they hoping to create conflict between the US and other advanced nations? The terrorists are not getting sympathy for their causes, so what continues to motivate them? Maybe it's just that violence is their only option, so they use it even if it leads nowhere.

Heh, Paul, you even bother replying YB.... Anyhow, what are the anti-war colition in UK planning to do after the tragedy? In his rhetorics Blair doesnt seem to back down a bit on his position of the war.

Hi Paul, The tragedy in London is classic blowback. When the Japanese militarists began invading Pacific countries they eventually, "reaped the whirlwind," which culminated in the fire-bombing of Tokyo and the dropping of the atomic bombs. The USA has gone down the same path, invading Afhganistan and Iraq, with Britain, the "useful idiot," following behind. I can't see how this will end well. The Anglo countries have created a monster, and the monster won't go away. regards John

Cryofan is a hell of a guy from what I've seen and I too wonder about his promotion of surveillance cameras. Let me suggest an alternative. The technology will result in concentration of information and power. It is imperfect and its perfection only points further in the direction of control by some elite. The more sophisticated and expensive the means... and interpreting becomes the domain of technocrats... Well, humans are well-suited to recognize and assess members of our own species. Slow down. Make 'em have a cup of tea with you. Exchange pleasantries. Don't trade without a bit of this. Don't shuttle them about without cordialities, human obstacles. I am saying that old societies, xenophobic and welcoming, in all their stupid social ritualism, where everyone knew you and privacy was rare... those places were not easy to infiltrate. Hell, people used to suffer banishment before prisons and punishments were in vogue. You can't have what George Soros thinks of as an "open society" without being open to terror bombings. You can have the old world, though, no tech required. Can't say I'd care to live in it. But you didn't need cameras to catch the Enemy Within. He woke you getting up in the middle of the night to act funny. When there are no cops, everyone is a cop, and the one who would seek out a lone victim has it pretty hard. He is the hunted. All this is poorly expressed so you must use your imagination.

Why was the first part of my post censored? note: Actually, I'm currently attempting to secure "yakov" his own blog at ZNet. P.S

I was just watching Diane Sawyer's ABC television show. She had some big American terrorism expert on and he said that the terrorists' strategy has changed from attacking power structures like WTC and Pentagon to attacking "the proletariat" in soft targets like subways and buses. He actually said "the proletariat." By his analysis, the terrorists want to scare "the proletariat" so much that "the proletariat" will pressure American and British foreign policy decision-makers to stop being bloody imperialists in the Middle East. We can't given in to that kind of "proletariat"-bullying. We better tell our "proletariat" to keep riding trains and buses...to work and shopping. Well, a lot of terrorism's victims are ordinary working people, and their death and maiming is a price that rich bastards like Bush is more than happy to pay for their imperial dreams. I'm never surprised by terror attacks given the nature of US foreign policy in the Middle East, of which they are a natural and thoroughly predictable consequence. I was predicting something bigger than 9/11 in NYC just three months before it happened. It sounds like the British terrorism experts are surprised London had gone this long without getting a major hit. They don't even hesitate to say that the attacks are punishment for joining the invasion of Iraq. It's a no brainer. Eric maybe its time for another US city to get nailed...what's the over/under on Chicago or LA? I've been shying away from the Loop for a few years now. I have extended "YB" an interim reinstatement for as long as he continues to play Washington Generals to our Harlem Globetrotters. cyofan you are an unusual leftist: you don't like to hear about racism and you like Big Brother camera surveillance and nuclear power. Finally a note that helps explain the confusion regarding "YB'" comments: "Yakov Bok" has been identified as a reactionary ideological hooligan and a capitalism-worshipping Thought Criminal. In light of his demonstrated harmlessness and in return for his agreement to undergo an extensive program of rigorous ideological re-education in accordance with the scientific principles of "Juche" (which subsumed and transcended Marxism-Lenninism in the North Korean Constitution in 1977), however, "Yakov Bok's" commenting privileges have been provisionally restored. Sincerely, Kim Jong Il & Paul Street

I am generally in favor of surveillance cameras everywhere. Truth kills germs. Video is truth. I suspect that there is a decent chance that these bombing were NOT the work of non-state terrorists. CorpGovMedia needed this a LITTLE TOO MUCH. Support for Bushco was dropping like a rock. And support for war-oriented imperialism was also dropping. And look how the media is latching onto these bombings like a man overboard going after a life preserver. I just hope that if this was indeed the work of insider thugs, that all these cameras can somehow pull up an image. All we need is ONE white face, and support for the war machine plummets. We really really need for this to be exposed as an inside job, if indeed it was. Video showing that some insider was involved could be HUGE. Of course, all this is likely wishful thinking. But I can hope. And video could help.

cont... Fifth, Daley did not "enlist" his son. His son enlisted by his own free will. Your disdain for the son's actions indicate that you wish to curtail free will. Again, your true colors come out. Sixth, your belief that terrorist activity is caused by "what we do" is incredibly ignorant of who the enemy is and what the enemy stands for. The Al-Qaida statement said today's bombings were because of Jews and Christians. The enemy is in favor of theocratic rule with an iron fist. It's almost ironic that a dye in the wool Marxist like yourself would defend a bunch of theocrats. If you've ever spent time in Saudi Arabia, you'd know that life there is hardly intollerable due to "American Imperialism." Saudis don't work. Plain and simple. Oil money supports them. Arabs from non-oil regions and S.E. Asians are brought in to work as virtual slaves with no rights. Further, the on-going terrorist activity in Iraq is largely targeting Shias. Again, the violence is religiously motivated. I know it will be difficult for you, but perhaps it is time for you to stop being a self hating American and examine the theocrats you are defending and their motives for hating everyone that is not them.

"All terrorism is non-state by definition." That is not true. "State Terrorism" refers to things like the Soviet purges, Argentinian Death Squads, and other cases where the Government itself is trying to intimidate and suppress all or part of their civilian population. Terrorism is a tacitc - it is defined by a METHOD and PURPOSE, not by who does it. Second, the London surveillance systam WAS set up to help catch IRA terrorists. While a "sack" might not be noticed BEFORE the blast, it is only a matter of going back over tape to see exactly who placed it - and using the mutliple cameras the are ALL OVER London they can see a whole pre-attack history of the terrorists actions, even sometimes being able to identify which house he left in the morning. The system, while not one I want to live under, helped radically cut IRA terrorist attacks in London. It uses facial recognition to try and recognise known IRA "soldiers", and also police use it to contruct "social networks" around known terrorists in order to identify possible new terrorists or terroist supporters.