Is London a mini-9/11?

When I first read about what happened in London, I did assume it was terrorists retaliating for the ongoing U.S. presence. But after think on it, and reading the following article, I'm reconsidering:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/in...rtner=homepage

July 7, 2005
G-8 Meeting's Focus Shifts to Terrorism

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
AUCHTERARDER, Scotland, July 7 - The bombings in London today knocked the summit meeting that had just gotten under way here off of its carefully scripted focus on global warming and African poverty and turned it into a forum for President Bush and other world leaders to express their unity in confronting terrorism.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, as host of the summit meeting of the Group of 8 big industrialized nations, had set an agenda that was intended in part to shift the focus in his nation away from his support for the war in Iraq and his foreign policy partnership with Mr. Bush.

But within minutes of the first session starting, it was apparent that this summit meeting would be defined for its response to violent Islamic fundamentalism. And it seemed perhaps fitting that the American and British leaders were together at the moment when Britain confronted its version of the 9/11 attacks that transformed the national security policy of the United States and ultimately led them to send their militaries together into Iraq.

Indeed, Mr. Bush learned of the London bombings a little over an hour after they occurred, around the start of the first formal meeting, apparently from Mr. Blair, said Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary.

Although Mr. Blair left for London several hours later, Mr. Bush and the other leaders who had gathered here at the Gleneagles golf resort made a show of sticking more or less to their schedule of meetings and discussing their differences over how to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

But Mr. Bush was clearly more focused on the terrorist threat. He left a meeting during the middle of the morning and, sitting outside his hotel suite, held a videoconference over a secure line with his national security team in Washington to discuss the possible threat to the United States.

During the day, he had informal conversations with some of his counterparts from other nations and his aides suggested that he used the opportunity to discuss terrorism and his policy of trying to stop terrorists preemptively.

"The contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill, those who have got such evil in their hearts that they will take the lives of innocent folks," Mr. Bush said in remarks to reporters. "The war on terror goes on."

If the bombings were intended, as Mr. Blair said, to disrupt the summit meeting, they also had the effect of unifying a group of leaders who have had their differences over everything from the war in Iraq to trade and foreign-exchange rates.

In addition to the leaders of the eight big industrial nations - the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada and Russia - those of China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa were also on hand for today's session.

"The leaders will stand firm against this evil," said President Vicente Fox of Mexico, adding that the bombings had stirred them all to work harder to reach agreement on a wide variety of issues, including trade and global warming. "It is passing from word to action, the spirit coming out of this meeting," Mr. Fox said.

Two European leaders who were frequently at odds with Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair over the war in Iraq pledged to stand shoulder to shoulder with Britain. President Jacques Chirac of France, who has also been squabbling with Mr. Blair on other issues, said his nation was in "total solidarity" with the British. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany said the international community "must do everything in its power to fight terrorism together with all the means at its disposal."

The display of unity may have masked what is sure to be a debate in Britain and elsewhere over whether London was attacked because of Mr. Blair's strong support for the invasion of Iraq. And there was little public talk here about the adequacy of international counterterrorism efforts nearly four years after Al Qaeda adherents attacked the United States.

The leaders here canceled their group photo, and American officials said work continued well into the day on a communiqué intended to show that the group's eight members had found common ground on how to address global warming, an issue on which Mr. Bush is at odds with most of his allies.

Mr. McClellan said Mr. Bush never considered leaving the summit meeting. After learning of the bombings at the start of the first meeting, Mr. Bush summoned his national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, and asked him to begin coordinating the American response, Mr. McClellan said.

Around the same time, he said, Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, learned of news reports about the bombings from one of his deputies, Joe Hagin. Between them, Mr. McClellan said, Mr. Hadley and Mr. Card began calling other officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney, who was at his home in Jackson Hole, Wyo.

• Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Here's what I'm thinking:

1) It's no great secret that Bush was less-than-enthusiastic about the Blair agenda: Africa/Global Poverty and Global Warming.
2) It came as no shock to me (in fact I predicted it before I read it) that Bush would say, "The war on terror goes on." (Actually the quote I predicted was "The war on terror continues." Close enough, eh?)
3) Isn't it convenient that the host of the meeting was forced by emergency to leave and take his agenda with him?
4) Also convenient that it would leave the protestors in confusion. How can you protest global poverty in Scotland when a horrible terrorist attack has just taken place on your own soil? All of us who support the goals of the ONE campaign agree that poverty is the soil from which terrorism grows, but this is an immediate, close-to-home tragedy, as opposed to the long-term plans ONE is trying to promote.
5) Finally, this tidbit caught my attention from the first article I read:

"A group describing itself as affiliated with Al Qaeda took responsibility for the attack on an Arabic-language Web site but British police said they were unable to confirm the authenticity of the claim. The group called itself the Secret Al Qaeda Jihad Organization in Europe and said the attacks were to avenge British involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."

A conveniently al Q'aida-esque claim, yet so vague. Why so vague? Hell, even Osama wasn't vague (even though we all know he was paid to not be vague), nor were the terrorists who hit Madrid last year, once they revealed themselves.

My one hope is that, like Madrid, this prompts huge demonstrations against the Blair regime which has committed British troops to Iraq, and helps to get Britian out of Iraq. If Shrub or Shrub's crony's did have any involvement here, then the blowback from that should be pretty huge, especially as the Downing Street Memos are still at the top of Rep. Conyer's TO DO list.

The whole just leaves me sick to my stomach. That and the Time's gall in comparing Judith Miller to Rosa Parks. I wrote them a scathing letter in response to their disgusting editorial today. Not a good day. Especially for those poor folk in London killed and injured and their families. Just like 9/11, this may prove to be another mass murder on the heads of certain muckity mucks and I sure as hell wish they were in jail so they could stop getting away with these murders. (Let's see, what's the count now? 3,000 NYC, 300+ soldiers in Afghanistan, uncounted but probably hundreds of civilians in Afghanistan, 1700+ soldiers in Iraq, 100,000+ Iraqi civilians, almost 200 in Madrid*, and now close to 40 in London. Did I miss any? Oh, yeah, 200+ at the Pentagon and in PA on 9/11. And this doesn't count the hundreds of thousands wounded and maimed everywhere.)

* I count Madrid because even though that appeared to be substantiated as al Q'aida, it was in retaliation for Spain's involvement in Iraq, which is a Bush administration baby, of course.

It's all a possibility... but definitely good thinking on your part.

i was looking for the first thread i was reading about this cause i didn't get to read it all. but stumbled across this one instead. i can't say what my opinions are at this moment. i have yet to find any facts other than 40 dead.

40 dead and al CIAda did it... what a joke...

Actually the count is up to 50 and there's one Underground railcar they haven't reached yet, and they assume that most, if not all, aboard it are also dead.

I heard this this morning on DemocracyNOW. Like a good news organization, DemocracyNOW does not speculate. But it does report on unusual activities that make people think and speculate. Today, which focused on the non-LMSM view of the London massacre, was no exception. I encourage you all to check out today's show at

http://www.democracynow.org .

Take particular note of the news brief about Fox News, and the transcript that includes MP George Galloway.

I know I plug this show a lot, but it is so refreshing to have a trustworthy news source in addition to indymedia.

why did fox news this morning say only 13 dead?