One event changes attitude in UK-----how strange

Understand you BETTER, infers that we didnt understand you before.

NOT TRUE.

It was generally felt that the USA had EVERY right to go after those AQ b*stards, and what did Bush do?

"In the wake of this attack." <smacks forehead in dismay> ....did you not read my previous post, dissecting the opening statement?
This is nothing new to us, it is only the terrorist organisation that has changed. PLEASE go back and read it carefully.

Dismayed, truly dismayed.

Goodnight everyone, I shall now go to bed a lot more disillusioned than when I woke up. See you around.

If they don't want to understand what you're saying, LordEllpus, they're choosing not to.

You've been very clear in your comments.

I think Ray you are the first person I have ever heard to say that there is a) too much tolerence and b) that tolerence lead to violence.

I am not even sure what to say to that.

TTF

Ellpus

<smacks wrist with ruler>

<musses hair and pats on bottom>

You read things that weren't in my post.

"Understand better" in no way denotes absence of previous understanding.

C- in Readin'.

TTF

That's OK TTF, then I suspect you of being a mulitculturalist raving liberal.....if you are, I certainly wouldn't expect you to understand my meaning.

Bombs go off in London. The Brits immediately begin to look for the perpetrators. Note that, they are looking for - and may well have found - the perpetrators. And done so in an amazingly short period of time.

I've heard restrained and dignified comments from politicians and senior police officers. I don't think to this moment I've seen anyone in a military uniform making pronouncements about this outrage. It is being handled by the civil authorities.

Blair hasn't gone on television to swagger and boast and blast and spray hate at anyone. The excellent British military isn't getting ready to invade and occupy anyone (well not any new invasion and occupations anyway).

The police response was to keep an open mind on the possible perpetrators. Instead of leaping to the nearest concusion (as I admit I did) they have diligently worked through the evidence and formed a reasonable hypothesis which looks very much as if it is correct.

These are not the responses of a frightened nation. These are the measured responses of a nation that understands reality only too well. This is a model for the rest of us.

When this happens again, what will the response be? The time after that? How many Brits will need to die before they do finally react violently?

The response will likely be the same. What do you think the response shoud be? Rant and rave and attack somebody? You seem to love the idea of war and violence. Why else would you ask how many Brits have to die before they finally react violently. The U.S. acted violently and without just cause and Americans are still dying daily.

The British authorities have handled this in a very calm, professional and wise way. Perhaps Mr. Bush could take a lesson.

<Due to server problems this post is two hours late>


I'm scratching my head here. I read Clarke's comments twice and Rayban's original post three times and I still can't find one mention of the English change of heart towards Bush. Perhaps this is wishful thinking on Rayban's part.

I asked that because that seems to be a motivating factor. If I asked how much meat needed to be boiled, I don't really think would motivate many Brits into action, would it?

The US acted as the US has a history of acting. Decisively and with overwhelming force. That's how our country was formed and that's how our country operates. It would be silly to expect Britain to react the same way the US does just it is silly to expect the US to react the same way Britain did.

You really can't accurately compare the two attacks, I don't think.

We had an outside attacker. We had clues to where to find them.

Britain's were home grown. No need to mobilize an army, IMO. But, they'll have to do somehing.

Yes, Britain is civilized after all :-)

It appears a growing percentage of them aren't civilized in the least.

A lot of stories have been written about London 7/7 and it's repercussions.

I thought I'd bring a couple.

A defiant Islam rises among young Britons
By James Brandon | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

LONDON - Thursday's coordinated terrorist attacks that killed at least 49 people have underscored competing forces within Britain's Muslim community: a minority that advocates violence against Western targets, and those who want to coexist peacefully with Britain's multifaith, multiethnic society.
Since the bombings, the media and Muslims have been at pains to explain that most of the country's 2 million Muslims are peaceful. "The Muslim community in Britain has a long history and is enormously diverse," says Anas al-Tikriti, a member of the Muslim Association of Britain.

But the attacks are turning attention to the increasing numbers of young British Muslims who are rejecting their parents' traditional culture in favor of a radical and expansionist Islam. This strikingly Western version of Islam combines an independence of thought with a contempt for established traditional scholarship and a theme of teenage rebellion.

"Getting involved in radical Islam is an emotional thing rather than a rational decision," says Abdul-Rahman al-Helbawi, a Muslim prayer leader. "And it's not a matter of intelligence or education - a lot of these radicals in Britain are very well-educated."

In Dalston market in north-east London on Thursday, "Abdullah," a Muslim watch-mender and evangelist, was in a pugnacious mood.

"We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" he said. "We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God."

Two days later in a prosperous West London cafe, Mr. Helbawi pondered the attacks. "It's not a surprise but I am still shocked," he said. "How can they do this? London is a city for all the world. This is not Islam."

Hours after the bombings, Helbawi logged onto an Internet chat room run by British Muslim extremists. "They were all congratulating each other on the attacks," he said. "It was crazy. They were talking about how they had won a great victory over the infidels, as if they had just come back from a battle."

Although so far, there is no evidence that British Muslims were involved in the bombs, there is little doubt that many British Muslims feel that Britain "deserved" the attacks for supporting the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Because Muslims explain the conflicts in Iraq, Kashmir, and Israel through Islam, every Muslim feels involved," said Helbawi. "People watch television and see Palestinian women being hit and pushed around by Israeli soldiers, and get angry and feel that they have to do something."

But beyond anger, a sense of alienation often drives radical Islam. Many second- and third-generation immigrants find themselves cut off not only from their parents' cultures but also from a British one that includes alcohol and looser sexual mores.

"If you don't drink, it really cuts you off from English society," says Ummul Choudhury, a London-based Middle East analyst for the Gulf Centre for Strategic Studies. "The view of the older generation is also that you do not integrate. If you do, you are told you are betraying your culture and religion."

The resulting isolation makes it easier for young Muslims to develop a contempt for British society.

"There is also a lot of racism toward white British people," says Ms. Choudhury. "It's not really something that people want to talk about, but there are definitely some things that Muslims say between themselves that they would never say in front of white people."

For frustrated and isolated young Muslims, radical Islam is not difficult to find. Girls in particular are often prevented from going out at night and can be easily drawn into online Muslim communities where they come into contact with other disillusioned Muslims from across Europe.

One leading analyst of the Islamic diaspora even compares the lure of extremist Islam to 1950s teens listening to Elvis in an attempt to shock their parents. "The son of a Pentecostal preacher in Brixton was recruited by the radical Muslims," says Nadhim Shehadi, acting head of the Middle East program at Chatham House.

"This young man initially tried to upset his parents by becoming a rapper," says Shehadi. "But when his parents stopped objecting, he became a jihadi instead."

The antiestablishment nature of this new Islam and its apparent status as an alternative to capitalism and secularism is also winning converts among native Britons.

"People come to Islam from all walks of life. It's not just middle-class people but also electricians, judges, and taxi drivers," says Sara Joseph, the editor of "Emel," a lifestyle magazine for Muslim women, who converted to Islam at age 17. "The main catalyst for conversion is often going out with a Muslim, although the primary factor is usually a search for spirituality."

While the estimated 1,000 British Christians, atheists, and members of other faiths who convert to Islam every year are often attracted by Islam's clearly defined teachings, this minor trend is overshadowed by Muslims' highbirth and immigration rates, which tomany Muslims promises increased political and social influence in the future.

Indeed, taking advantage of Britain's rapidly expanding and increasingly Muslim population are new parties that aim to promote ethnic and religious agendas. One is Respect, a left-wing party founded by former Labour MP George Galloway, that aims to unite Muslims and socialists around opposition to American foreign policy and globalization.

Linked to the desire for increased political power are attempts by some radical Muslims to begin a process of Islamicizing British cities.

Last month, Muslim groups in Glasgow petitioned the City Council to ban an Italian restaurant from serving alcohol to diners seated at outside tables. Hospitals in Leicester considered banning Bibles from hospital wards to avoid offending Muslim patients. In Birmingham, a group called Muslims Against Advertising began a campaign of painting over billboards that they deemed offensive to Islam - targeting ads for Levi's jeans, perfume, and lingerie.

But these small campaigns are polarizing public opinion along ethnic and religious lines - and creating support for Britain's far-right groups, who present themselves as defenders of Britain's hard-won freedoms.
------------
Good grief. I didn't know things were that bad.

PS-- Somebody's going to put a cap in Galloway's grill.

bm

You haven't been reading Lord Ellpus properly

We've had this before, the IRA - funded by America - bombed our pubs and shops for years. We dealt with it without hysteria. We'll deal with this, difficult but true

and if you think that we are now backing Bush - think again! he is perceived by the majority as a joke, a swaggering film cowboy, every phrase carefully rehearsed and like a film script with no relationship to a real multicultural world.

The whole muslim world cannot be blamed any more than the whole catholic world was responsible for the IRA and its atrocities.

Those aren't repercussions Lash - that stuff has been going on for years. There have been race riots in the Midlands and North of Britain inspired by just the factors pointed out in the article. The bombings in London are a major escalation of domestic problems (again if the allegations are proven).

The point is that there has been a measured response from the British government.

In a sense this incident is more along the lines of the Oklahoma City bombing than 9/11 (a point that has already been made and which I acknowledge). This is domestic terrorism for the UK (again I have to say if the allegations currently afoot are indeed proven). But there is an international link in that the alleged criminals have been trained and inspired by organisations outside the UK.

McG wrote

Probably the same response as this time. Don't forget the Brits are used to domestic terrorism, they've been dealing with the IRA for years and never felt the urge to lay waste to major US cities with large expatriate/ethnic Irish populations that gave lots of money to the terrorists.

Snippet from a previous quote from Rayban


EXACTLY! It is because we have been the victim of bombings time after time, that our response was so "stoic". There indeed WAS no panic, and we got on with our lives as normal, within a very short time, leaving our excellent Police to get on with their enquiries, having full trust in their abilities.

The USA, on the other hand, having experienced 9/11, went into full panic mode, with their people not daring to leave its borders for a very long time (tourists coming to England from the USA were virtually nil), and your leaders ran around, waving their knickers in the air, looking for a fly to swat.

So, your point was?