London Blast kills 40

[reeds]

So I ask...is our world safer now than pre-9/11?? Can you really tell me that it is??


Four London Blasts Kill 40, Injure 700 By JANE WARDELL, Associated Press Writer
7 minutes ago



LONDON - Four explosions rocked the London subway and tore open a packed double-decker bus during the morning rush hour Thursday, sending bloodied victims fleeing in the worst attack on London since World War II. At least 40 people were killed, U.S. officials said, and more than 700 were wounded.

A clearly shaken Prime Minister Tony Blair called the coordinated attacks "barbaric" and said they were designed to coincide with the G-8 summit opening in Gleneagles, Scotland. They also came a day after London won the bid to host the 2012 Olympics. A group calling itself the Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe claimed responsibility.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the explosions have the "hallmarks of an al-Qaida related attack. He added that neither Britain's police nor the intelligence services had any warning of the attacks.

The four blasts went off within an hour, beginning at 8:51 a.m. (3:51 a.m. EDT), and hit three subway stations and the double-decker bus. Authorities immediately shut down the subway and bus lines that log 8.4 million passenger trips every weekday.

The bus explosion seemed to go off at the back of the vehicle, said bystander Raj Mattoo, 35. "The roof flew off and went up about 10 meters (30 feet). It then floated back down," he said. "There were obviously people badly injured. A parking attendant said he thought a piece of human flesh had landed on his arm."

Doctors from the nearby British Medical Association rushed into the street to treat the wounded from the bus. "The front of BMA house was completely splattered with blood and not much of the bus was left," said Dr. Laurence Buckman.

"It was chaos," said Gary Lewis, 32, evacuated from a subway train at King's Cross station. "The one haunting image was someone whose face was totally black and pouring with blood."

As the city's transportation system ground to a near-halt, buses were used as ambulances and an emergency medical station was set up at a hotel. Rescue workers, police and ordinary citizens streamed into the streets to help.

Some central London streets emptied of traffic. Groups of commuters who had been on their way to work gathered around corner shops with televisions, watching in silence. The mood was somber and subdued.

At the request of Queen Elizabeth II, the Union Jack flag flying over Buckingham Palace was lowered to half staff.

Blair, flanked by fellow G-8 leaders, including President Bush, read a statement from the leaders. "We shall prevail and they shall not," he said.

"Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilized nations throughout the world," he said earlier.

Returning to London, he promised an intense police hunt for those responsible. He said he knew most Muslims worldwide "deplore this act of terrorism."

"They are trying to use the slaughter of innocent people to cow us," he said. "They should know they will not succeed."

In Scotland, police evacuated a section of Edinburgh's main shopping street after a suspect package was found on a bus.

In Scotland, Bush warned Americans to be "extra vigilant," and his administration raised the terror alert for mass transit a notch to code orange. Security also was stepped up in the U.S. Capitol and in train and bus stations around the country.

Much of Europe also went on alert. Italy's airports raised alert levels to a maximum. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Russia, the Netherlands, France and Spain also announced beefed-up security at shopping centers, airports, railways and subways.

The U.N. Security Council was expected to pass a resolution condemning the blasts later Thursday, an official said.

A group calling itself "The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe" posted a claim of responsibility, saying the blasts were in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The statement also threatened attacks in Italy and Denmark, both of which have troops in Iraq. It was published on a Web site popular with Islamic militants, and the text was republished on Elaph, a secular Arabic-language news Web site, and Berlin's Der Spiegel magazine.

The statement's authenticity could not be immediately confirmed, but terrorism experts said the blasts had the trademarks of the al-Qaida network.

"This is clearly an al-Qaida style attack. It was well-coordinated, it was timed for a political event and it was a multiple attack on a transportation system at rush hour," said Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at King's College in London.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick said there had been no arrests, and it was unclear whether suicide bombers were involved.

Asked about the claim of responsibility, Paddick said: "We will be looking at that ... at the moment we don't know if that's a legitimate claim or not." He added British officials had received no prior warning or advance intelligence that the attacks would occur.

European stocks dropped sharply after the blasts, with exchanges in London, Paris and Germany all down about 2 percent. Insurance and travel-related stocks were hit hard, and the British pound also fell. Gold, traditionally seen as a safe haven, rose.

The explosions also unnerved traders on Wall Street, sending stocks down sharply.

Three U.S. law enforcement officials said at least 40 people were killed. They spoke on condition of anonymity and said they learned of the number from their British counterparts.

In London, police said they could confirm at least 37 people had been killed, including two in the bus attack.

Buckman, the London doctor, said ambulance staff told him about 10 people died in the bus blast. BMA doctors treated about nine seriously wounded people in the building's courtyard, two of whom later died, he said.

London police said at least 700 were wounded. Among them, at least 45 were in serious or critical condition, including amputations, fractures and burns, hospital officials told The Associated Press.

London Mayor Ken Livingstone said the blasts were "mass murder" carried out by terrorists bent on "indiscriminate ... slaughter."

"This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty or the powerful ... it was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners," said Livingstone, in Singapore where he supported London's Olympic bid. Giselle Davies, an International Olympic Committee spokeswoman, said the committee still had "full confidence" in London.

Jay Kumar, a business owner near the site of the bus blast, said he ran out of his shop when he heard a loud explosion. The bus's top deck collapsed, sending people tumbling to the floor, he said. Bloodied people ran from the scene.

"A big blast, a big bomb," he told The Associated Press. "People were running this way panicked. They knew it was a bomb. Debris flying all over, mostly glass."

"I was on the bus in front and heard an incredible bang, I turned round and half the double decker bus was in the air," Belinda Seabrook told Press Association, the British news agency.

Traces of explosives were found at two explosion sites, a senior police official said.

Explosions were reported at the Aldgate station near the Liverpool Street railway terminal, Edgware Road and King's Cross in north London, Old Street in the financial district and Russell Square, near the British Museum.

"I saw lots of people coming out covered in blood and soot. Black smoke was coming from the station. I saw several people laid out on sheets," office worker Kibir Chibber, 24, said at the Aldgate subway station.

Simon Corvett, 26, on an eastbound train from Edgware Road station, described "this massive huge bang ... It was absolutely deafening and all the windows shattered."

"You could see the carriage opposite was completely gutted," he said. "There were some people in real trouble."

On March 11, 2004, terrorist bombs on four commuter trains in Madrid killed 191 people.

___

[FishForLunch]

I get it we deserved it. If only we left the islamists alone they would not have bothered us.

What do you say to the 1993 WTC bombing, Embassy bombing in Africa, USS Cole bombing, Doha towers bombing in Saudi Arabia all that was Pre-9/11

[FishForLunch]

Reeds here's what your friend has to say

------------------------------------------------------


Galloway: Bombings price of Iraq

Londoners have paid the price for Iraq and Afghanistan, says George Galloway.

The Respect MP, whose Bethnal Green and Bow constituency includes the site of at least one of the bomb attacks, said the attacks were "despicable".

But he told MPs it was the US-led coalition's actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo which had inflamed hatred of the West in the Muslim world.

In response, minister Adam Ingram accused Mr Galloway of "dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood".

The armed forces minister added that Mr Galloway's comments were "disgraceful".

Same mistakes?

Earlier Mr Galloway said he was absolutely clear the bombings had been carried out by Islamic extremists inspired by Osama Bin Laden's world outlook.

He argued that the bombings had not come out of the "clear blue sky" - the background was the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, photographs of abuses by US troops at Abu Ghraib prison and the continuing confinement of people by America at Guantanamo.

Mr Galloway said the West was in danger of making the same mistakes over and over again, continuing with "war and occupation as the principal instrument of our foreign and defence policy".

He added: "And if we do then some people will get through and hurt us as they have hurt us today."

Paid the price?

Mr Galloway who was expelled from the Labour Party over his outspoken comments on the Iraq war, linked the deaths of people in London to the deaths of those in Falluja at the hands of coalition forces.

Earlier, in a statement, the MP said: "The loss of innocent lives, whether in this country or Iraq, is precisely the result of a world that has become a less safe and peaceful place in recent years.

"We have worked without rest to remove the causes of such violence from our world.

"We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain.

"Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings."

He urged the government to remove people in the UK from "harm's way" by ending the occupation of Iraq and focusing on finding a real solution to conflicts in the Middle East.

Downing Street declined to comment on Mr Galloway's comments.

[Mavdog]

the point Reeds is making (for those who seem to miss it) is that the invasion of Iraq has not removed nor dimished the threat of terrorist attacks. The constant attempts by this administration to link the terrorist network to the Hussein regime are shown to be false, the terrorist network existed seperate from that regime before the invasion and consequently the attack on Iraq has done nothing to diminish the capability of that terrorist network to act.

It can be argued that the attack on Iraq has actually aided the terrorist network for the following reasons: 1) we have not been able to finish the job in Afganistan (their haven), a fact that has been reinforced over the past few weeks, 2) we have seen our committment of money, time and personnel directed away from the war on terror by the war in Iraq, and 3) the problems that we have faced in stopping the violence against the Iraqi population produces a negative perception of the American committment to the islamic people.

Although I strongly disgaree with George Galloway he is not alone in his opinion. If we had not attacked Iraq like we did there would not be that opinion circulating would there?

[mavsman55]

Was invading Iraq supposed to eliminate terrorism from the entire world completely? No. Was it supposed to slow it down? Yes.

Are we at fault for terrorism that happens in England? I don't think so.

Such tragic events are impossible to foresee. It most likely has something to do with the Olympics.

[dude1394]

Wonderful Reeds is back. So the islamic murders say this is payback for Iraq and Afghanistan. So now Reeds is even too chicken-**** to stand up in Afghanistan when 3000 americans are incinerated. A long,long history of Neville Chamberlin runs in reeds blood-line.

[dude1394]

Amir Taheri explains what it is that the jihadists want. And it is not something that we can bargain with them about or appease them to stop from killing us.

But sorry, old chaps, you are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it his divine duty to kill you.

--------------
Whatever, leftists can continue to show themselves as not willing to stand up to a bunch of islmic pissants who murder innocent women and children. As usual when it comes to defending themselves and others, they let someone else do it.

[FishForLunch]

What do you say to the 1993 WTC bombing, Embassy bombing in Africa, USS Cole bombing, Doha towers bombing in Saudi Arabia all that was Pre-9/11

Care to explain these attacks all of them were pre 9/11. Did Bush Sr or Clinton upset the Arab world? Just remember even if a Democrat is in the White house the Islamists will not quit. You can hide in your corner but they (Islamists) will find a reason to blame all their trouble on the US, Jews or Western culture. I am just wondering who the liberals and left will blame when Hillary is the president and she continues to hunt Islamists?

[Chiwas]

I am just wondering who the liberals and left will blame when Hillary is the president and she continues to hunt Islamists?

I'm hoping she continues hunting the terrorists, but more focused and without special interests in between. And the liberals can blame whoever or whatever they want, I don't care a bit as long as she pursues the real objective, to find them and stop their threats. Hopefully, hopefully, it happens.

[MavKikiNYC]

[Drbio]

reeds is such a damn coward. He revels in the terroristic misfortunes of our English friends and pathetically tries to turn it into a Bush bashing. Our world is much safer than it was on 9/11. Period.

I guess if John sKerry was president reeds would have stepped up, showed some balls and placed the blame on fascist islamists where it belongs. His blind hatred of peace, the good job that Bush has done and the world communities fight against terror have inabled him to think rationally.

What a tool.

[mavsman55]

Funny how Bush gets more blame for terrorism than the terrorists themselves. Isn't that pathetic? [img]i/expressions/moon.gif[/img]

[jacktruth]

So, did 9-11 happen because we were in Iraq?

I'm guessing that even the far left has to admit that the answer is no. What about the WTC bombings? Embasies? USS Cole? Was that all because we were in Iraq too?

These people have been attacking the US since we started backing Israel. They are murderers, not victims.

If we pulled out of the middle east, let Islam overrun Israel, they may leave the free world alone. But it is more likely that they will just keep on killing. England stood with us and did not bow to fear. We should be proud to call them friends and allies.

To use this as ammunition against Bush and Blair is just plain ignorant.

[u2sarajevo]

The mindset that points the blame at the US and the Bush Administration is exactly what the terrorists are after. They think we are weak minded and that they can sway our opinion with their cowardly acts. So if you think that way, essentially you are supporting the terrorist organization(s). Not directly of course.... but you are, in fact, doing what the bad guys want.

[dude1394]

Boy christopher hitchens tore Ron Reagan Jr. a new one. Greatness. Almost as satisfying as listening to Give 'em hell Zell telling Mathews to shove it.
---------------------
ron reagan gets spanked

Ron Reagan just proved that brilliance is not hereditary.

On MSNBC's Connected: Coast to Coast, Christopher Hitchens from Vanity Fair was involved in a complete verbal undressing of Ron Reagan. Reagan, like all the other feel first, hate Bush second, think last lefties, is so intent on re-writing history to make the case that the war in Iraq was illegitimate, got boxed around the ears by Hitchens. Here's the exchange:

RR: Christopher, I'm not sure that I buy the idea that these attacks are a sign that we're actually winning the war on terror. I mean, how many more victories like this do we really want to endure?

CH: Well, it depends on how you think it started, sir. I mean, these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there. If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean. Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?

RR: Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which...

CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it?

RR: No, actually, I didn't say that, Christopher.

CH: At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?

RR: What I did say, though, was that Iraq was not a center of terrorism before we went in there, but it might be now.

CH: How can you know so little about...

RR: You can make the claim that you just made about any other country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.

CH: Absolutely nonsense.

RR: So do you think we ought to invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from, following your logic, Christopher?

CH: Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government, even when you said the worst...

RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.

CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?

RR: I guess because I listen to the 9/11 Commission, and read their report, and they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror. I suppose that's how, Christopher.

CH: Well, then they were wrong, weren't they?

RR: No, maybe they just needed to listen to you, Christopher.

CH; Well, I'm not sure that they actually did say that. What they did say was they didn't know of any actual operational connection...

RR: That's right. No substantive operational connection.

CH: ...which was the Iraqi Baath Party and...excuse me...and Al Qaeda. A direct operational connection. Now, that's because they don't know. They don't say there isn't one. They say they couldn't find one. But I just gave you the number, I would have thought, rather suggestive examples.

Ron Reagan couldn't see fire if the flames turned his shorts black. Hitchens may be wrong on a lot of issues, but he understand the nature of the people we're fighting, and what is necessary to defeat them. Ron Reagan is a sad political hack, trying to trade on his father's name, and doesn't have a clue in the world about the war we are facing. All he knows is what the DNC tip sheet tells him.

[reeds]

As usual,you all fail to see the point ( except Mavdog). Iraq should not have been the focus of this war on terror- Period. Your butt buddy W sold you all out, and you bought into it, hook, line and sinker.

You all can bash kerry all you want, but I am sure he would have finished the job in Afghanistan first. After all- isnt that where the real terrorist's call home? But of course, Bush wanted to run the world, flex a little muscle..so what is the end result anyway? How many dead now? How many billions? For what? Again I ask, are we any safer now that Sadaam is no longer running the country of Iraq?? HELL NO.. Just smokescreens..pay attention to whats happening out there..get a clue. Its really not that difficult to figure out.

"So, did 9-11 happen because we were in Iraq?"

Of course NOT, just flip flop it..we are in Iraq because of 9/11. that is the BIG HUGE lie that Bush told the world. He wanted to sell you on lies that Iraq was somehow connected. Fact of the matter is- that was never proven and never will be- it was all a big fat lie. Of course after some of this country came to their senses and realized that, he flipped it around and concentrated on the fact that Sadaam was an evil dictator...bottom line- NO 9/11, no Iraq war..that was Bush's slimiest was to invade- and it worked..too bad it did nothing for the safety of this country- NONE.

[dude1394]

As usual you are full of it.

Big huge lie that bush told, that congress passed a resolution on, that clintoon still agrees with. When are you going to come back to reality.

And of course we DO see the point. The point that you feel we should just cower down and wait for the next al queda attack. Do nothing and hope it goes away. Mommy, mommy. Al Queda hit us before iraq, after iraq and will continue to hit us until they are DEAD or the muslim population get off their ass and stop supporting it.

The solution to islamic terrorism by reeds is........okay again....... ..?? I'll help (nothing).

And if kerry WOULDA, COULDA done something different why the HELL did he vote to enforce the official policy of the US for iraqi regime change.

Ooopss...oh hell, it's not polically good now, so I'll change my mind.

It's the reason that democrats should never, EVER be trusted in power again.

[Mavdog]

Christopher Hitchens is perpetuating a spin.

Abu Nidal was not an islamist, and he was not allied with al queda.

Yes, he was a murderer. he was a terrorist.

he was a murderer and a terrorist before Bin Laden ever issued his fatwa.

Zarqawi was in iraq...the part of iraq that was outside of hussein's control.

to say that iraq was a "terrorist haven" due to these examples is like saying that america supports nazis because richard butler was in idaho.

[dude1394]

The problem with your "spin" mavie is that al queda is a manifestation of a larger muslim and worldwide issue. That is why democratizing iraq is so important. Sooner or later the british as well as the americans are going to come to the conclusion (and we'd better hurry up) that islam is providing cover and succour to worldwide terrorism. That is the fundamental issue that hitchens (and dubya) is dealing with. In your limited viewpoint, if al queda (i.e. bin laden) were somehow eliminated tommorrow then no other group would take their place.

Thomas Friedman in the NYTimes (how nice when some intelligence comes out of the "paper of record") said:
"The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden."

THIS is the major issue here. The islamic societies in their impotence have created a tactic that empowers them and they are not condemning it. As Friedman also states, sooner or later the west will deal with this issue and ultimately it will not be with a gentle hand.

This is bigger than bin laden, it involves the entire middle east and the islamic faith. The islamists are quite adept at using the media (they have learned from the great terror master Arafat) for many years, you (imo) are the person they are targeting for defeat.

[dude1394]

Love those australians....Replace the australian with american and you can see why so many people feel that rampant unrestrained multi-culturalism is so dangerous. The "price" of immigration is assimilation into the culture of the country.

aussie

-----------

Don't ask whether Australia is a target because of who we are or what we do. We are a target on both counts. Like Britain and the US, we are a target because we belong to the Zionist-Christian conspiracy but we are also a target because of our policies, notably our intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As John Howard said yesterday: "There is the possibility of a terrorist attack in Australia. I can't guarantee it won't happen." Howard correctly pointed out that the world had changed forever after September 11.

In this situation there are two traps that Australia needs to avoid. One is succumbing to the right-wing backlash that targets Muslims as a group and divides our society by erecting new barriers to their integration.

This means, in turn, that our leaders should explain that the aim of multiculturalism is to create one united society, not a collection of ethnic tribes, and that Muslims must accept that the price of tolerance is their integration into Australian society.

The other trap lies in the prejudice of the anti-Howard, anti-Blair, anti-Bush Left and its false claim that the West is responsible for this war, a claim that is dangerous because it assumes one can appease or negotiate with jihadists whose objective is mass murder. Bin Laden's strategy rests on his declared conviction that the West is corrupt, decadent, weak and will fold. The only response is a blend of the dignity and strength on display in London.

[dude1394]

Hmmmmm.....so which political party in the united states would agree with Iranian position.... hint...it's NOT the party of Reagan.

But one of the country's top clerics, Ayatollah Mohammed Emami-Kashani, said they were the direct result of the UK's support for US and Israeli policies.

[Mavdog]

I find it interesting that what you call my "spin" are facts that you could not refute. Iraq had no involvement in the islamist terrorist network such as hitchens suggests.

rather than refute, you go into a demonization of islam as a religion.

"it involves the entire middle east and the islamic faith"

it is not islam that is the problem. there is no reason to rail against "multi-culturalism", which frankly is an American concept that has served us nicely for two centuries. Alan Dershowitz said it well when he wrote of the "American stew", rather than an "American melting pot". We are a collection of cultures that all retain their traditions and beliefs, not a melted and pureed soup. The middle east will need to exhibit the same aceptance of muti-culturism for democracy to be successful.


I cannot understand how anyone can minimize the fact America has not dealt with bin Laden like Bush supporters do. The inability to find him throws a light on him that for his potential follwers is that of a divine protection. The removal of bin Laden won't end the battle, but how can anyone not see that it would go a great way toward that goal? the job was not finished and until it is finished we have a greater exposure to an attack.

Rather than completing the mission in Afganistan, taking care of those who attacked us, we divert to attack Iraq. Ten times as much manpower and money is sent to Iraq,

Those who have voiced that these attacks are a consequence of Iraq aren't correct. They aren't a result of our actions in Iraq, yet they are a tangent.

[dude1394]

Stephen Hayes does not agree with you nor I. Iraq was a terrorists haven. Iraq had an airplay hijacking training facility. Like Ronald Reagan you have determined that the 911 report because it did NOT find an "operational alliance" with Sadaam Hussein has "proven" that there was no al queda connections. The committee chairmen themselves have agreed they just don't know.

Islam is at a crossroads and to overlook that is naive imo. Only the reluctance of americans to have rampant multi-culturalism has made it a positive here. Not that it has not been challenged with bi-language education for example. The europeans are seeing what the effects of unbridled multiculturalism is whwre the citizens are not assimilated and are a country within a country. In the case of islam it's obviously even more dangerous as their culture gives tacit approval to terrorists.

the mother of all connections

"In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of

Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.

"

U.S. government "Summary of Evidence" for an Iraqi member of al Qaeda detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

-----
There could hardly be a clearer case--of the ongoing revelations and the ongoing denial--than in the 13 points below, reproduced verbatim from a "Summary of Evidence" prepared by the U.S. government in November 2004. This unclassified document was released by the Pentagon in late March 2005. It details the case for designating an Iraqi member of al Qaeda, currently detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an "enemy combatant."

1. From 1987 to 1989, the detainee served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades.
2. A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994.
3. The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban.
4. The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan.
5. The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000.
6. The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition.
7. The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members.
8. The detainee was a member of al Qaida.
9. An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997.
10. The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels.
11. From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaeda leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.
13. Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002.
----------
Indeed,
more than two years after the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was ousted, there is much we do not know about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. We do know, however, that there was one. We know about this relationship not from Bush administration assertions but from internal Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) documents recovered in Iraq after the war--documents that have been authenticated by a U.S. intelligence community long hostile to the very idea that any such relationship exists.

We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

We have been told by Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden's longtime mentor Abdullah Azzam, that Saddam Hussein welcomed young al Qaeda members "with open arms" before the war, that they "entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation," and that the regime "strictly and directly" controlled their activities. We have been told by Jordan's King Abdullah that his government knew Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war and requested that the former Iraqi regime deport him. We have been told by Time magazine that confidential documents from Zarqawi's group, recovered in recent raids, indicate other jihadists had joined him in Baghdad before the Hussein regime fell. We have been told by one of those jihadists that he was with Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war. We have been told by Ayad Allawi, former Iraqi prime minister and a longtime CIA source, that other Iraqi Intelligence documents indicate bin Laden's top deputy was in Iraq for a jihadist conference in September 1999.

All of this is new--information obtained since the fall of the Hussein regime. And yet critics of the Iraq war and many in the media refuse to see it. Just two weeks ago, President Bush gave a prime-time speech on Iraq. Among his key points: Iraq is a central front in the global war on terror that began on September 11. Bush spoke in very general terms. He did not mention any of this new information on Iraqi support for terrorism to make his case. That didn't matter to many journalists and critics of the war.

CNN anchor Carol Costello claimed "there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda." The charitable explanation is ignorance. Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who serves as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, knows better. Before the war he pointed to Zarqawi's presence in Iraq as a "substantial connection between Iraq and al Qaeda." And yet he, too, now insists that Saddam Hussein's regime "had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, it had nothing to do with al Qaeda."

Such comments reveal far more about politics in America than they do about the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship.
-------------

[dude1394]

And let's not forget why we cared so much about Iraq in the first place.. How nice that with hindsight we can take potshots at our government as if we knew all along. We can take unfair potshots at bush as a liar, etc. when he followed our constitution to obtain agreements every step of the way for his iraqi action. And action that was supported by the majority of the democrat party, prior presidents (except carter of course).

As is the nature of the left and the democrat party since 60's if the fight is tough and the enemy hasn't lain down or the fighting isn't bombing from 10,000 feet and dropping cruise missiles, it's personal hand-to-hand and our soldiers are bearing the brunt of it, as is their history they seek to appease an enemy that can't be appeased. Condeming the rest of our history either with these murderers amongst us, internment of muslim populations or decades of even greater turmoil in the middle-east as islamists seek to re-join the caliphate.

The left now feel they can retreat back into appeasement because it's tough. Well that has always been the way of the current democratic party and that is why they cannot be trusted with being in power.

------------

michaelgoodwin
To the terrorists, 50 or 100 or 500 victims, all that matters is bigger is better. Or have we forgotten the video where Osama Bin Laden laughed as he described the twin towers' collapse? Have we forgotten that each attack is, in his sick mind, a mere warmup to the Big One?

In 1998, he issued a statement titled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam." In it, he said that "it is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."

[dude1394]

What is interesting however is that the blast in london seems to have allowed the more moderate muslim factions within the religion to stand up more than they did after sept 11. We are after all "the great satan".

However Britain is only the great satans sidekick and therefore fatwas may be issued. The statement from the terrorist (wanna be political parties) in the below linked article are an example. To be honest, I have to see a lot more before muslim communities are off the hook.

The response outside Britain has also been much stronger than ever before. The grand imam of Al-Azhar, Sheik Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, condemned the bombers but went further, rejecting the argument that this attack could be justified as an attempt to force Britain out of Iraq. "This is illogical and cannot be the motive for killing innocent civilians," he said. More striking have been the condemnations from radical groups like Hamas, Hizbullah and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, all of which have denounced the bombings. Many of them have, of course, coupled their attacks on the terrorists with denunciations of American and British policies in the Middle East, particularly regarding Iraq and the Palestinian territories. But that kind of rhetoric is old news. What is new here is the fact that no one, not even Hamas, can continue to condone or even stay silent about these barbarities.

msnbc

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: dude1394
Stephen Hayes does not agree with you nor I. Iraq was a terrorists haven. Iraq had an airplay hijacking training facility. Like Ronald Reagan you have determined that the 911 report because it did NOT find an "operational alliance" with Sadaam Hussein has "proven" that there was no al queda connections. The committee chairmen themselves have agreed they just don't know.

Islam is at a crossroads and to overlook that is naive imo. Only the reluctance of americans to have rampant multi-culturalism has made it a positive here. Not that it has not been challenged with bi-language education for example. The europeans are seeing what the effects of unbridled multiculturalism is whwre the citizens are not assimilated and are a country within a country. In the case of islam it's obviously even more dangerous as their culture gives tacit approval to terrorists.

the mother of all connections

"In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of

Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.

"

such a "terrorist haven" and this is all you can muster?
jeesh.

And let's not forget why we cared so much about Iraq in the first place.. How nice that with hindsight we can take potshots at our government as if we knew all along. We can take unfair potshots at bush as a liar, etc. when he followed our constitution to obtain agreements every step of the way for his iraqi action. And action that was supported by the majority of the democrat party, prior presidents (except carter of course).

pretty hard to point to consent when that consent was given based on false and inaccurate supposed "facts".

[dude1394]

Typical....

Seems that you don't cut the administration the same slack that you do to your own party when they had the same information. Same information clinton(bill AND hillary), kerry, blair, france, russia, egypt etc. had.

And as usual for a dem, if it doesn't hold up in a court of law then it's just not worth acting on. And somehow you had the same level of proof that bin laden was behind 9/11 when it was voted on?
I don't think so, in fact didn't he deny it, how could we have attacke him without proof?

That's why the current democratic party should NEVER be in power.

[dude1394]

Tell me this isn't a problem with islam itself. It will NOT take many more of these before there is some serious, serious consequences for the muslim miniorities.

----------
bayosphere

My friend Milverton Wallace, a London resident who's a journalist and educator, told me this morning of his day yesterday and gave me permission to post his e-mail:

I spent much of the day talking to Muslim friends. The consensus is that the bombers are home grown. If so, this is as much a failure of the education system as it is of security. How can anyone born, raised and educated in his country not know that this city cannot be cowed by bombs?

One day after, life goes on; the city's back at work, the conference in Gleneagles continues.

I talked to many of the young Muslim lads I've known since they were babies, and I talked to their parents. And guess what? The parents are shocked, the youngsters gleeful. Go figure. The leaders of the Muslim Council of Britain can issue as many statements of solidarity and sympathy as they like; the facts are that many of their children rejoiced after the carnage in New York and they rejoiced after the slaughter in London yesterday.

Even if the bombers are foreigners, they couldn't operate here without the help of home-grown supporters.

Either way, this country has a big problem: to find a way to integrate a sizable number of disaffected and alienated young people so they do not attack their own country or aid and abet those who would. The political class reacted swiftly and admirably yesterday, but I'm afraid that rhetoric and resolution won't cut it.

Just to give you a sense of the scale of the problem: there are about a million Muslims in the country and they have the youngest age profile of all the ethnic/religious groups . About a third (34 per cent) are under 16 years of age compared to 19 per cent for Anglos. (Figures taken from the 2001 census).

So there you have it; a human time-bomb, just waiting to be primed.

* See also: Mini Kahlon's report from Lodi, California, where Muslim men have been charged with lying to the FBI in an unrelated matter.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Typical....

Seems that you don't cut the administration the same slack that you do to your own party when they had the same information. Same information clinton(bill AND hillary), kerry, blair, france, russia, egypt etc. had.

you mean that intelligence that we now know was filtered to arrive at the intended conclusion? deception is not a pretty thing.

or to quote Bush, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, we won't get fooled again." that was too funny. he has such a talent for mistating things.

And as usual for a dem, if it doesn't hold up in a court of law then it's just not worth acting on. And somehow you had the same level of proof that bin laden was behind 9/11 when it was voted on?
I don't think so, in fact didn't he deny it, how could we have attacke him without proof?

That's why the current democratic party should NEVER be in power.

no. bin laden gloated about 9-11 being an al Queda mission.
with the way you twist the facts above you are just the type who could work for this administration's intelligence service.

[dude1394]

with the way you twist the facts above you are just the type who could work for this administration's intelligence service.

Yup me and billy boy clinton.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: dude1394

Yup me and billy boy clinton.

Ooppsss I should have said hillary clinton. So since hillery will probably be your candidate for president how do you support such a liar that equates the mission in Iraq as part of the long struggle against terrorism. Here is Hillery in 2002

Just to hammer the point home, here's a quote from the 800 pound gorilla of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, that was made on Oct 8, 2002:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

And hillary now..

hillary

She said the United States should remain in Iraq until peace can be maintained by the Iraqi people, saying the mission was part of the "long struggle against terrorism" by the U.S.

I just don't get it, how will you be able to support such a candidate??

[MavKikiNYC]

Why Do They Hate Us? Not Because of Iraq

By OLIVIER ROY
Published: July 22, 2005

Paris

WHILE yesterday's explosions on London's subway and bus lines were thankfully far less serious than those of two weeks ago, they will lead many to raise a troubling question: has Britain (and Spain as well) been "punished" by Al Qaeda for participating in the American-led military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan? While this is a reasonable line of thinking, it presupposes the answer to a broader and more pertinent question: Are the roots of Islamic terrorism in the Middle Eastern conflicts?

If the answer is yes, the solution is simple to formulate, although not to achieve: leave Afghanistan and Iraq, solve the Israel-Palestine conflict. But if the answer is no, as I suspect it is, we should look deeper into the radicalization of young, Westernized Muslims.

Conflicts in the Middle East have a tremendous impact on Muslim public opinion worldwide. In justifying its terrorist attacks by referring to Iraq, Al Qaeda is looking for popularity or at least legitimacy among Muslims. But many of the terrorist group's statements, actions and non-actions indicate that this is largely propaganda, and that Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are hardly the motivating factors behind its global jihad.

First, let's consider the chronology. The Americans went to Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11, not before. Mohamed Atta and the other pilots were not driven by Iraq or Afghanistan. Were they then driven by the plight of the Palestinians? It seems unlikely. After all, the attack was plotted well before the second intifada began in September 2000, at a time of relative optimism in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Another motivating factor, we are told, was the presence of "infidel" troops in Islam's holy lands. Yes, Osama Bin Laden was reported to be upset when the Saudi royal family allowed Western troops into the kingdom before the Persian Gulf war. But Mr. bin Laden was by that time a veteran fighter committed to global jihad.

He and the other members of the first generation of Al Qaeda left the Middle East to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Except for the smallish Egyptian faction led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, now Mr. bin Laden's chief deputy, these militants were not involved in Middle Eastern politics. Abdullah Azzam, Mr. bin Laden's mentor, gave up supporting the Palestinian Liberation Organization long before his death in 1989 because he felt that to fight for a localized political cause was to forsake the real jihad, which he felt should be international and religious in character.

From the beginning, Al Qaeda's fighters were global jihadists, and their favored battlegrounds have been outside the Middle East: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya and Kashmir. For them, every conflict is simply a part of the Western encroachment on the Muslim ummah, the worldwide community of believers.

Second, if the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine are at the core of the radicalization, why are there virtually no Afghans, Iraqis or Palestinians among the terrorists? Rather, the bombers are mostly from the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Egypt and Pakistan - or they are Western-born converts to Islam. Why would a Pakistani or a Spaniard be more angry than an Afghan about American troops in Afghanistan? It is precisely because they do not care about Afghanistan as such, but see the United States involvement there as part of a global phenomenon of cultural domination.

What was true for the first generation of Al Qaeda is also relevant for the present generation: even if these young men are from Middle Eastern or South Asian families, they are for the most part Westernized Muslims living or even born in Europe who turn to radical Islam. Moreover, converts are to be found in almost every Qaeda cell: they did not turn fundamentalist because of Iraq, but because they felt excluded from Western society (this is especially true of the many converts from the Caribbean islands, both in Britain and France). "Born again" or converts, they are rebels looking for a cause. They find it in the dream of a virtual, universal ummah, the same way the ultraleftists of the 1970's (the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Italian Red Brigades) cast their terrorist actions in the name of the "world proletariat" and "Revolution" without really caring about what would happen after.

It is also interesting to note that none of the Islamic terrorists captured so far had been active in any legitimate antiwar movements or even in organized political support for the people they claim to be fighting for. They don't distribute leaflets or collect money for hospitals and schools. They do not have a rational strategy to push for the interests of the Iraqi or Palestinian people.

Even their calls for the withdrawal of the European troops from Iraq ring false. After all, the Spanish police have foiled terrorist attempts in Madrid even since the government withdrew its forces. Western-based radicals strike where they are living, not where they are instructed to or where it will have the greatest political effect on behalf of their nominal causes.

The Western-based Islamic terrorists are not the militant vanguard of the Muslim community; they are a lost generation, unmoored from traditional societies and cultures, frustrated by a Western society that does not meet their expectations. And their vision of a global ummah is both a mirror of and a form of revenge against the globalization that has made them what they are.

Olivier Roy, a professor at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, is the author of "Globalized Islam."

[reeds]

"And as usual for a dem, if it doesn't hold up in a court of law then it's just not worth acting on. And somehow you had the same level of proof that bin laden was behind 9/11 when it was voted on?
I don't think so, in fact didn't he deny it, how could we have attacke him without proof?

That's why the current democratic party should NEVER be in power."

Dude-Are you freaking serious?? Bin Laden never ever denied it- he bragged to the world about it..too bad Bush forgot quickly about 9/11, turning his attention to much more serious matters-Iraq..what a joke

[dude1394]

Not so my confused democrat compadre.


-----
Note the date...


It's too late. Bin Laden admitted it all back in November:

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/ne.../11/wbin11.xml

quote:
Bin Laden: Yes, I did it
By David Bamber
(Filed: 11/11/2001)

OSAMA BIN LADEN has for the first time admitted that his al-Qa'eda group carried out the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Telegraph can reveal.

In a previously undisclosed video which has been circulating for 14 days among his supporters, he confesses that "history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents".

In the footage, shot in the Afghan mountains at the end of October, a smiling bin Laden goes on to say that the World Trade Centre's twin towers were a "legitimate target" and the pilots who hijacked the planes were "blessed by Allah".

The killing of at least 4,537 people was justified, he claims, because they were "not civilians" but were working for the American system.

[dude1394]

But I don't see why you should let small things like reality entrude on your rant.

[FishForLunch]

It is going to be interesting in 2008 when we have Madam Hillary as the President, what will Reeds do, he will not have Bush to hate.

[dude1394]

It will be entirely predictable. He will reverse his positions 180 degrees. Also even now, as hillary clinton unabashadlyl continues to support the war on terror (she voted for it at first, continues to support it whenever asked) Yet..no criticism of her.

No problem with reeds however. But I don't really expect principled behavour by a democrat anymore. The party has been radicalized and is without merit. Only until they can get rid of the kennedy's, michael (maggot) moore, robert KKKByrd should the party even be considered viable. It's been a long 30 years of minimization. I think for the dems only an internal split of the repblicans will allow them to regain power.

And hillary ain't there yet brotha'.

Oopps...forgot this nutcase.

from georgia no less?

McKinney reopens 9/11
Conspiracy theories implicating president aired at 8-hour hearing

By BOB KEMPER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/23/05

Washington — Revisiting the issue that helped spur her ouster from Congress three years ago, Rep. Cynthia McÂ*Kinney led a Capitol Hill hearing Friday on whether the Bush administration was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The eight-hour hearing, timed to mark the first anniversary of the release of the Sept. 11 commission's report on the attacks, drew dozens of contrarians and conspiracy theorists who suggest President Bush purposely ignored warnings or may even have had a hand in the attack — claims participants said the commission ignored.

[dude1394]

Another interesting part about this from reeds that is also illustrative of the wacky democrats.

The first question was::

-- Is the US safer after afghanisatan/iraq? Reeds has been hoping for proof that this isn't the case for 3 years now. And he hasn't gotten it (you know, no more terrorist acts).
-- So the question needs to be asked another way and he does..

So I ask...is our world safer now than pre-9/11?? Can you really tell me that it is??

So he had to open up the question to the whole wide world. That way bombings in bali, egypt can also be blamed on bush and not terrorists. Typical.