So much for help from the British Muslim community. Their supposed leadership has essentially told us to surrender if we want the bombs to stop:

"7/7, 21/7, and God knows what will happen afterwards, our lives are in real danger and it would seem, so long as we are in Iraq and so long as we are contributing to injustices around the world, we will continue to be in real danger."

It was "contributing to injustices around the world" to remove a brutal dictator who murdered Muslims by the villageload?

"Tony Blair has to come out of his state of denial and listen to what the experts have been saying, that our involvement in Iraq is stupid." His comments were echoed by the marketing manager for The Muslim Weekly newspaper.

Shahid Butt said he believed the threat to Britain would reduce if it pulled its troops out of Iraq. He said: "At the end of the day, these things [violent incidents] are going to happen if current British foreign policy continues. There's a lot of rage, there's a lot of anger in the Muslim community.

"Yes," said Mr. Hitler, "those German bombers are going to continue to happen. There's a lot of rage, a lot of anger in Germany. You need to change your foreign policy, and stop supporting efforts to overthrow the legitimate Petain regime in Paris."

"We have got to get out of Iraq, it is the crux of the matter. I believe if Tony Blair and George Bush left Iraq and stopped propping up dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world, the threat rate to Britain would come down to nearly zero."

You mean dictatorial regimes like the one in Afghanistan, one of the few democracies in the Muslim world, that became that way only because of British and American arms? Or the new democratic government in Iraq (again a result of British and American "foreign policy"), one that is being undermined by people who apparently love killing Muslims, for whom this man is making apologies and excuses?

Which specific "dictatorial regimes does he have in mind"? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? I'm all ears as to any suggestions he has to reform those places.

But sorry. John Howard had it exactly right. I'd suggest you listen to what he has to say, Dr. Tamimi.

[Update at 1 PM PDT]

It strikes me that this is classic good cop/bad cop, with Dr. Tanimi and his confederates playing good cop, and the thugs being the bad one. "You know, maybe you should listen to us and do what we say, wouldn't want that other guy to get a hold of you--no telling what he might do."

[Update at 1:55 PM PDT]

Here's another one:

Speaking 15 days after bombers killed over 50 people in London and a day after a series of failed attacks on the city's transport network, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said the British capital should expect more violence.

"What happened yesterday confirmed that as long as the cause and the root problem is still there ... we will see the same effect we saw on July 7," Bakri said.

"If the cause is still there the effect will happen again and again," he said, adding he had no information about future attacks or contacts with people planning to carry out attacks.

Yeah, I'll bet he has no information...

[One more update]

It occurred to me when discussing this on the phone with someone just now that of the three Anglosphere leaders, Bush is a straight (albeit occasionally stumbling over words) talker, Blair is eloquent and articulate (albeit slippery, which really stands out when he appears next to someone like John Howard), but what's great about John Howard is that he combines these traits--eloquent, articulate, and straightforward. I occasionally wish that we could trade leaders with folks Down Under.

"I believe if Tony Blair and George Bush left Iraq and stopped propping up dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world, the threat rate to Britain would come down to nearly zero."

What would it take to get the threat down to exactly zero? Imposition of sharia?

Well, that might be a start...

There's an easy way to stop supporting the dictatorial regime in Egypt, and save $2Bn a year at the same time.

What is it that Bakri is suggesting? That all muslims be expelled from Britain, and denied entry thereafter? That is after all the cause and root problem of islamic terrorism in Britain, is it not?

It's interesting how they've adopted the Left's terminology of 'root causes'.

"It strikes me that this is classic good cop/bad cop,"

I think you got the analogy a bit wrong, Rand. It's a classic all right, but a different one: a classic protection racket. Right out of Mafia Ops 101.

Like the "Suicide Dudders", the strategy of the terrorists are likewise a dud. For like the British in WWII they can be no surender. They can be no compromise, and we can never truly give in to their demands. I doubt even adopting Sharia will be enough to satisfy them, if this is truly a "blood feud" meme.

The British continue to be hobbled by political correctness. The London police commissioner, speaking of the would-be bomber gunned down in the underground, said his death was "tragic." Until the last remnants of PC have been shed they'll be fighting with one hand tied behind their back.

The British continue to be hobbled by political correctness. The London police commissioner, speaking of the would-be bomber gunned down in the underground, said his death was "tragic." Until the last remnants of PC have been shed they'll be fighting with one hand tied behind their back.

It was indeed tragic he died so easily and before he was forced to tell all he knew.

The events in London sadly illustrate the libertarian fantasy (delusion?) of open borders that Sam Dinkin was advocating earlier on this blog.

On December 27, 1997 in a Forbes magazine interview Milton Friedman states "it's just obvious that you can't have free immigration a welfare state"

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/982/friedman3.html
Paraphrasing him I add "it's just obvious that you can't have free immigration and homeland security."

Banjo,

Aside from direct financial damage, the objective of the bombers is to provoke. They seek a particular response from the UK that furthers their aims. They have not yet achieved it.

One of these objectives is to alienate the domestic muslim population. They need the British people and authorities to lash out and repress muslims so that the community becomes more receptive to their radical ideology or is less apt to oppose it. Inducing such a cycle of violence, repression, hatred and violence again is necessary for them to destabilize any country.

This war is partly fought in the media domain; cultural sensitivity is a defense. On the ground the British interpretation of PC does not disadvantage the offense. Indeed, I expect it pay dividends in a similar way as befriending Iraqis does for soldiers in Baghdad.

Examples of US sponsored Arab dictatorships? Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, to name a few. You know, Pakistan, the country OBL is supposedly hidding. The country which sold uranium centrifuges to North Korea. The country which sold US fighters to China.

Need I go on?

That aside, I mean, one measly victim in a bomb attack. That is no reason to be terrified. It is a reason to be cautious of course, but no biggie.

These people must be getting recruited and trained somewhere. They must also be getting the money to buy the explosives from somewhere. Kill the sources of funding and the terrorism will cease.

What's interesting here is that so many Muslims in England right now seem to have no fear about stating their true feelings, even if in some cases they are muted from threats into merely warnings.

After Sept. 11, you didn't see anything like this type of braggadocio from official Muslim spokesmen in the United States, and were there to be something similar to the London subway bombings in New York or some other U.S. city in the future, I doubt you'd see anything like what Tamimi said. That's not because there aren't some Muslims in the U.S. who don't harbor similar feelings, but because they know the reaction of the majority of the U.S. public wouldn't be to sit there and take it if someone on their own soil basically to America to "change your foreign policy or die."

I am no advocate for concentration camps or general roundups.

However, when radical immigrants threaten the security of ANY nation, they should be returned to their country of origin. Including whether they are then "legal" citizens of that country or not.

Citizenship requires MORE than lip service and paying taxes. If the immgrants, or for that matter, the born citizens of a country disagree with the workings of that country, so much that they seek to make change by blowing up innocent victims, they need to move. By force if necessary.

Now obviously, I am not talkng about NOT over throwing regimes like the old Iraq or North Korea, or any other totalatarian crowd that rules by killing and maiming its internal opponents.

THAT IS NOT the situation in the U.K. The bombers wish to make the U.K. into thier own twisted version of what the world should be. Or at least want the goverment in the U.K. to do things their way. O.K. so get a majority together and vote in your own people or people who agree with you. Don't kill innocent people to get our way. Isn't that what we get accused of? Killing innocent Iragi's and Afghani's to got things done our way?

Here's the difference, when civilians are killed by the U.S., U.K., etc military in Iraq / Afghanistan, ITS AN ACCIDENT!! Not so 2 weeks ago in London, last year in Spain or daily in Iraq.

If its so damn westernized and evil in the U.K., U.S., Australia, Sweden or even France, then why don't they pack up mom and the kids and go to Iran or some other Moslem nation that IS their idea of how it should be.

Or better still let's just impose religious rules that say you CAN'T be moslem in those western countries.

"Christians and Jews Only" signs in all the airports, and sea ports and bus stations, at all the borders. Clear out anybody else, or have them stop worshipping the way they want, in those on-state sanctioned religions.

You can't preach Christianity in Saudi Arabia or Iran or many other places in that part of the world. It'll get you imprisoned at best, killed at the worst.

Oh, I forgot, it's WESTERNERS who are not willing to let people live their own lives!! WESTERNERS who are non-tolerant! Yeah, in a pigs eye, oh sorry are you offended by pork!! WELL TOUGH!!

I am so tired of the dual standard world I could just puke!!

JUST FOR THE RECORD, I DO NOT FEEL BETTER!!!

Before you trade leaders, please consider that Australia is the only country to have had a space programme, and abandoned it, twice. The last time on John Horward's watch.

He's not perfect.

But of course I voted Liberal (ie for Howard's party), he has a keen grasp of what to do in the war.

Democracy, Immigration, Multiculturalism -- pick any two.

Allow unlimited Immigration from a Culture which rejects Democracy and other Cultures, and sooner or later something will give.

After the attacks at Sharm, do you think the Egyptians will pull their troops out of Iraq?

If the terrorists are blowing up London, Madrid, New York because of our continued "meddling" in the middle east, then why blow up 88 people in Egypt?

Less than 20 of the victims were westerners. That means, 68, or so, were NOT westerners. So that old cannard about fighting the infidels is all CR@P!! Almost 70 of these people were most probably moslem, given where they were.

Murderers are Murderers, ideology doesn't change that.

"These people must be getting recruited and trained somewhere. They must also be getting the money to buy the explosives from somewhere. Kill the sources of funding and the terrorism will cease."

We tried, Oxygen Destroyer. Unfortunately, Sgrena survived.

This bit from the Sheik above struck me as true, but not in the way he meant it: "If the cause is still there the effect will happen again and again".

Indeed, use the same recipe, you get the same bread.

In this case the recipe was written by a child marrying, genocidal barbarian. Kill every last man, woman and child who won't convert, that was The Prophet's own plan of action.

How could any fundamentalist Muslim NOT either end up violent, or guilty because they are not?

The excesses of Christian, Buddhist and Taoist cultures (and most others) can be reigned in by appeals to fundamentalist practices, since their founders were men of profound peace. Not so with Islam. That really is, I believe, the ultimate 'root cause'.

Notice how that the intramural "you're not real muslims" hate-fest between Sunni and Shia Moslems is as nothing compared to how they both view splinter groups, such as the Bahai and Sufi, that have reformed the most un-modern beliefs of The Religion of Peace TM. The Bahai are no longer waiting for the Madhi (or messiah, whom they claim their founder was), and they therefore don't believe that Mohammed was therefore the latest Prophet to have lived (yes billy, he was the last one before the Madhi, not the last one period.)

And the Sufi just dropped that whole 'the koran is the literal truth dictated by an angel and can never be changed' nonsense that it patently is on it's face, and are hence the worst of all.

So our victory condition is unfortunately a huge task: turning 1 billion people into heretics within their own faith before we end up having to kill most of them.