Why it doesn't matter if it was a detonator or a bomb.

[Maddy McCall]

The point of terrorism is to keep the enemy population on guard, so that they allow the government to restrict civil liberties and to drain their economic resources fighting against a threat that is PERCEIVED as very real.

The perception of an immediate and enduring threat is the WHOLE point of terrorism. Killing people isn't necessary. Making people believe that they COULD BE killed is the goal.

[SoCalDem]

1. and to disrupt commerce so badly that people are afraid

to shop or perhaps even go to work.. If that continues long enough, tourists quit coming, and layoffs start...

[maddezmom]

2. all good points

it's getting my blood pressure up :scared:

[Windy]

4. As I said in an earlier post....attention needs to be focused back

on the DSM and the Plame outing!

The critical issue of our time is the creation of more terrorists as a result of the war in iraq.

[evermind]

3. Just to state the obvious..

I wouldn't try taking that line with the relatives of the 56 victims of the previous bombings.

From the perpetrators' point of view, there may be some equivalence in value, but ultimately a series of non-fatal "bombings" will lose their ability to inspire terror if not interspersed with the real thing.

imho.

[Windy]

5. Easy to say from afar isn't it.

The people of London don't deserve this.

[Maddy McCall]

6. My PhD minor is military history.

I'm talking about it from that standpoint. I do have sympathy for the families of those killed in the first attack.

[evermind]

8. Point taken. The "military" value may be similar, while the

immediate human consequences are vastly different.

Assuming the perpetrators are from the same mileu as the previous attack (a huge assumption!) and the non-fatal nature of this one is intentional, I'd also say it's a much riskier strategy, since it's a lot easier to catch and interrogate a live terrorist than a dead one..

[bigtree]

7. I understand the need to restrain Bush and Blair from using the incidents

to further their meddling 'war on terror'.

But I fail to see the point in downplaying the fact of yet another 'attack'. In the midst of all of the restrictive and intrusive security measures undertaken for over three years in the US and Britian, and with all of the heat from the last London attacks, there are still groups or individuals who feel free and seemingly unencumbered in their attempts to terrorize. This new attack highlights the glaring failure of Blair, and Bush, to discourage further violence against our countries. They have failed militarily, they have failed with their use of intelligence, and they have failed diplomatically in the sense that their attempts at nation-building have not lessened the threat of violence against the U.S., our agents, and allies.

As one witness to the chaos in England today just remarked, "It could have been worse".

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. Didn't work in the Blitz, did it?

The IRA bombing campaign didn't do it, either. London is the wrong city to try this tactic, IMO.