In think btw that getting hung up on the meaning of words is one of the hallmarks of ideology rather than science: scientists tend to use names like widgits, or stuff, because they know that this gets the interesting converstions of the ground with the *minimum* of presuppositions.

“Irak was not involve in any “terrorism” before..”

I don’t think this is an issue between us. I wouldn’t use the word *any* since this is impossible to know, but Iraq certainly seems not to have been a terrorist centre of any importance before the war, with the curious exception of Zarqawi who seems to have been in the mountains in the Northern, Kurdish zone.

“but of course for you, it doesnt exist because”

This isn’t true, I recognise that all this exists, although it is hard to quantify. I sincerely hope that the new Iraqi government will carry out major human rights investigations into all the allegations at some stage in the future. I just hope it lasts long enough to be able to do this.

“what you call there insurgents”

I use the terminology ‘insurgent’ since it is the most neutral available. Simply ‘terrorist’ or ‘resistance fighter’ are two extremes which I reject because they mask a pretty complex reality. Some of those killing in Iraq are better described as ‘terrorists’, but some undoubtedly consider themselves ‘resistance fighters’. I think at the end of the day we shouldn’t get hung up on words, we can call them ‘my dads old underpants’ for all I care. Words here are only ‘markers’ to enable conversations to take place.

No, it was a threat (and really small), there are always differents kind of threats, but not war : Irak was not involve in any “terrorism” before the anglo-saxon butchery there. only since the invading you can talk about war.

it s really shocking to read about unacceptable crime when it s happen in the country that attack because few wasp were victims and just sad collateral damage when it is happen to thousands innocents inhabitant without any defense. in irak, people die under cluster bomb, people die at check point, people die because of nervous GI but of course for you, it doesnt exist because not reported by the “journalists” who do not go out of the green area.

what you call there insurgents kill a lot but for most are not strangers, they are iraki !! and they kill far less than you ve done.

you want to change of politic, start by stopping to kill abroad and stopping to want to be the only judge about what is right and what is wrong on the planet.

There are no solution in Irak any more and for what you call terrorism, France had proved that one of the best way is to consider that as a police problem and accept it as a usual threat, and no give it to much importance and avoid any move than make thing worst.

And come to think of it, which war was the US in when the towers came down? Possibly it was in the same one we are all in now, just we didn’t recognise the fact that it had already started.

“I believe I recall reading somewhere that ‘al Qaeda’ means not ‘the net’ but ‘the base’.”

Yes, you’re right, my stupid memory playing tricks again. But, as you suggest, the point holds.

Now you are! In Afghanistan, “fighting” in an “anglo-saxon” war in a muslim country. Prepare yourself for reciprocity

I am no Arabist, but I believe I recall reading somewhere that ‘al Qaeda’ means not ‘the net’ but ‘the base’. That said, your description sounds right; Qeada seem less a centralised operation than a loose conglomeration of franchises.

So what? Yes, it was predicted and expected. That makes it no more acceptable. An ally has suffered an unacceptable attack. What the rest of Europe should do about that depends on the wishes of the British government and the exact details of the case, but there can be no question of the principal entitlement to full support. We do not condone terrorist acts nor give in to terrorist demands no matter what motives the terrorists may have.

Not only US attitude, do not forget that in this Anglo-saxon war (your not agree but facts are that only US & UK wanted this war), UK sent soldiers to invade a country and kill (without lot of discrimination, 750 kg bomb are not clever).

UK is a country at war, no one must forget that, and you can not expect invade and kill without “limited collateral damages” at home !!!! when you launch bomb, there is possibility to get bombed as well.

when Paris was bombed, the situation was different, we were not in war !

Well, as you might well know, intellegence is key. And that means full cooperation with secular muslim countries’ governments. Western agencies are lacking basic skills such as language.

Either we take it seriously that the worst threat is to Arab nations themselves, or we don’t. I may point out here that some countries, eg. Syria, have taken the fight against fundamentalism to levels unimaginable here. A full cooperation must be a bilateral thing. We cannot remain credible asking for Arab governments to fight fundamentalism and grant asylum to known fundamentalists under sentence in their home countries.

“British police said the three bomb attacks on London Underground trains on Thursday morning occurred almost simultaneously and were more likely to have been triggered by timing devices than suicide bombers.”Bearing in mind these were almost simultaneous, we think within 50 seconds of each other, maybe that lends more toward timing devices more than people actually with the bombs, manually detonating. But we are not ruling out either of those possibilities.” Police had previously thought the three blasts were spread over nearly half an hour, but revised their information in the light of new technical data and witness statements, he said.”