An Islamist fanatic blamed the West for the London bombings. The mayor of that city agrees with him. Considering this alternative, it's a good thing for New York that they had the leadership of Rudy Giuliani after the stateside terrorist attacks. But it's a better thing for Ken Livingstone that he's the mayor of London after 7/7 and not the mayor of New York after 9/11. Let's face it: the Gramercy Riffs, the Baseball Furies, the Turnbull ACs, and a dozen other fictional New York street gangs, including, even, the Orphans, would make quick work of this fool.

Anjem Choudary, an Islamic leader in Britain, refuses to condemn the London bombings. "The British government wants to show that they are on the side of justice and of truth, whereas in reality the real terrorists are the British regime, and even the British police, who have tried to divide the Muslim community into moderates and extremists, whereas this classification doesn't exist in Islam," Choudary remarked on state-run radio. Ken Livingstone, the socialist mayor of London, holds: "You've just had 80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of a Western need for oil. We've propped up unsavoury governments, we've overthrown ones that we didn’t consider sympathetic." He continued: "I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s...the Americans recruited and trained Osama bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians to drive them out of Afghanistan.... They didn’t give any thought to the fact that once he’d done that, he might turn on his creators." Yeah, sure Ken. Ronald Reagan did it. Keep reading Lyndon LaRouche tracts, why don't you? Screwball.

UPDATE: Four more blasts rocked London today. We can soon expect Ken Livingstone to put out an All Points Bulletin for Ollie North, the ghost of former CIA director William Casey, and Reagan-era Secretary of State George Shultz. I can hear Red Ken's radio dispatch now: "Ignore those Pakistani men with oversized backpacks! American right-wingers are the real culprits here! Get them! Track them down!"

Dan,

You forgot the Dead Rabbits. There mere sight of DiCaprio is enough to terrify.

Liberals never cease to amaze. Fanatics blow up dozens of people (not to mention themselves), and it's someone else's fault.

Livingstone is the right apologist for the job.

London continues to explode and this numbnut continues to blame the victims.

His sentiments on this will make him ineffective in the face of more bombings and should force a change of this "peace time" mayor for an official with some gonads.

How is it possible to discount the connection between the war in Iraq- and its connection with the war against Islamic terrorist organizations- and the bombings in London? How can a government wage a war against terrorist organizations ("terror") and Muslim states (killing hundreds or even thousands of civilians in the process) and expect that its citizens will not be in turn attacked by members of such organizations or those who support them? Of course those who carried out the attacks are to blame, but in waging war against certain parties it must be expected that those parties will fight back in return.

Ryan,

We aren't waging war against Muslim people. The Muslim people should thank Allah that we've given their brothers a chance at freedom.

There is no equivalence between us and them. When any civilians die, it's a tragedy, without question. However, there is a huge difference between the evil of intentionally targeting civilians and the unfortunate, awful reality of civilians dying amidst fighting.

We aren't the ones murdering people in Iraq -- the people blowing up the subways are the ones blowing up people in Iraq and then blaming us for the deaths of the very civilians they themselves are responsible for murdering. Chutzpah!

LOVE the Warriors reference. The Orphans! Heh.

Ben, I never stated that anyone was "waging war against Muslim People" in general. It is, however, undeniable that Western military forces have been occupying Muslim states and killing Muslim people. I'm not saying that the US or the UK should withdraw from Iraq, but am stating that the consequences of remaining there must be understood and accepted. So long as there is a Western military presence in Muslim countries, radical Muslims will attack Western civilians. It is also difficult to expect that Muslims would be thankful for US involvement in the Middle East. After all, what American citizen would be thankful for having Iraqi bombs level his neighborhood, killing family and friends- what American citizen would be thankful for having Saudi or Afghani troops based on US soil?

It is, however, undeniable that Western military forces have been occupying Muslim states and killing Muslim people.

We've been primarily killing those Muslims who terrorize and kill fellow Muslims.

I'm not saying that the US or the UK should withdraw from Iraq, but am stating that the consequences of remaining there must be understood and accepted.

More importantly, the consequences of the alternative -- appeasing instead of killing Islamic terrorists -- ought to be understood.

So long as there is a Western military presence in Muslim countries, radical Muslims will attack Western civilians.

Radical Muslims will attack us regardless if there is a military presence in Muslim countries. They want to wipe us out.

It is also difficult to expect that Muslims would be thankful for US involvement in the Middle East. After all, what American citizen would be thankful for having Iraqi bombs level his neighborhood, killing family and friends- what American citizen would be thankful for having Saudi or Afghani troops based on US soil?

Well, rational people (i.e. neither far leftists nor paleocons) recognize the obvious fact that the people of the United States are not living under tyranny. Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan would attack us in order to rule and tyrannize us. History shows the United States to be liberators, not empire builders. The peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan now, for the first time in their lives, have the opportunity to build free countries for themselves.

Ben, your suggestion that "We've been primarily killing those Muslims who terrorize and kill fellow Muslims" is not only unsubstantiated, but does not negate my assertion that "Western military forces have been occupying Muslim states and killing Muslim people." More than 7,000 Iraqi civilians were killed during the major combat phase of the US-led invasion- more than twice the number of people killed in the 9-11 attacks.

Your claims that "Radical Muslims will attack us regardless if there is a military presence in Muslim countries" and that "they want to wipe us out" are also problematic.

Of course some lone radical or small group of radicals MIGHT attack US citizens irrespective of future US government policies. What can be known with certainty is that the largest Islamic terrorist network in the world began to launch attacks against US citizens almost immediately after the first Gulf War, and that its leader, Osama bin Laden, has repeatedly stated that the attacks he has planned are RESPONSES to Western intervention in Muslim countries. He has also stated that his organization will not carry out attacks against free nations that do not occupy Muslim countries. Hence, members of such organizations have not flown airplanes into buildings in Stockholm, or set off bombs in Bern.

Finally, I asked: "It is difficult to expect that Muslims would be thankful for US involvement in the Middle East. After all, what American citizen would be thankful for having Iraqi bombs level his neighborhood, killing family and friends- what American citizen would be thankful for having Saudi or Afghani troops based on US soil?

Since you did not answer these questions, I will rephrase them: "yes" or "no," do US citizens want to be bombed; do they want foreign military forces on their territory?

To address a few points that have been raised in this thread, it is not wrong to question American foreign policy. It is quite healthy. Ryan asks the following questions: Do US citizens want to be bombed? Of course not. When we were bombed we did not like it very much. We were bombed on 911. We had our embassies bombed. We had the WTC bombing of 1993. The USS Cole was bombed. We've had who knows how many hijackings by Islamic Extremists. We had the Iranian hostage situation. Our actions, while sometimes flawed, are a reaction to the actions of Islamic Extremists. Do they want foreign military forces on their territory? This depends on the situation. Post 911, we used German planes to help patrol American air space.

The American troops on Saudi soil were there to restrain Osama Bin Laden's ally Saddam Huesien. They were there at the request of the Saudi government. Unfortunately people have died in this war. I think this needs to be understood in its context. Saddam came to power on 7/16/1979. During his reign some where between 500,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqis died, as the result of his imperial actions. Saddam was removed from power in April 2003. If we use the figure of 500k for people Saddam killed, this works out to approximately 57 people per day. The latest count from www.iraqbodycount.net puts the death count at a maximum of 25,890. This is since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom on 3/20/03. This works out to approximately 30 deaths per day. It would seem that there has been a net savings of Iraqi lives, as a result of Operation Freedom. The total Iraqi lives saved, as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom, based on these tentative calculations appear to be at least 23,000. More ana-lysis on this can be found at www.logictimes.com/antiwar and http://thedeadhand.com/blogs/jscroft/articles/627.aspx My ana-lysis is the most conservative. Flynnfilers can review this and make up their own minds. Suffice it to say civilian deaths need to be put in their proper perspective. Also it should be pointed out that iraqbodycount.net includes deaths caused by the terrorists. The Americans and their allies cannot be held responsible for these. I agree with Ben L. Arabs should be thankful to America and its allies for attempting to bring them freedom. Of course none of this is to say our policy is strategically sound. It is entirely possible that the democratic process could lead to another Iran. I certainly hope and pray that does not happen. As officials of the elected Iraqi government have pointed out, American and coaliton troops are not occupying Iraq. In the final ana-lysis, America does not live in a vacum. The ations of others affect what it does or does not do. Why has Stockholm not been attacked yet? I suspect it is a matter of strategic planning and availabilty of resources. The religon of the Islamic Extremists says to "slay the unbeliever where ever you find them." If Osama and his Iraqi "insurgent" allies want us off of their sacred soil, this is easy. Call of the global jihad. In the mean time, I would suggest we develop energy alternatives to oil. I think some of the money we are spending on oil is finding its way into the hands of terrorists. If we lessen the amount of oil we buy from the middle east, this would not eliminate the threat of terrorism but it would reduce the amount of money they have avaliable to fund global jihad.