Tell us something useful instead of suggesting we bomb everyone who might be threatening. Will that defeat people who are fully prepared to blow themselves up? Yes there is a fundamental threat of islamic extremism but it cannot be bombed away. There must be something else to do.

I have a lot to tell you about the events of this last week. My plan today was to write up my notes on the George Clooney appearance qua briefing; yesterday's afternoon protests in Edinburgh; the Wolfowitz speech on...

Reynolds obviously believes that the British people, having failed the BBC in its political adgenda to un-elect Mr Blair as the prime-minister, deserve everything they get.

In describing this as Al-Qaedas response to the general election he suggests that we should choose our politicians more carefully in future to avoid antagonising the extremists (and the BBC).

He advocates abandoning the war on the causes of terror in the Middle East to "minimis[e] the risk of further attacks" in the UK.

He goes on to offer the following encouragement to his islamofacist readership: "if put under enough pressure, [the British Government will] make concessions".

For the BBC to pronounce to the world that terrorism is a viable policy tool - that "the Israelis are withdrawing from Gaza [...] because they feel they have to." - that we must make concessions to the terrorists or "accept the consequences", that we must choose our leaders and make foreign policy based upon what is acceptable to those terrorists is the most dangerously irresponsible example of poor BBC journalism since the Gilligan scandal. Capitulation to terrorism only ever leads to more terrorism.

To allow terrorism to force our withdrawal from the war on terror is to capitulate to the terrorists. It assumes, wrongly,

that negotiation with the terrorists is possible, that there is some concession other than the blood of innocents that could be offered and that capitulation would lessen the likleyhood of our being targeted.

Terrorism is not the result of the war on terror -the war on terror is a result of terrorism. These terrorist attacks on London have no more to do with fight against terror in Iraq than did the 9/11 attacks on New York or the attack in Bali in 2002.

Iraq was not the motivation for Camel Bourgass, the Ricin Bomber, or for Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. All these incidents happened before a single allied soldier set foot in Iraq.

We live under the threat of terrorism not because of our involvemnet with Iraq, not because of patrolling no-fly zones, nor even because of our association with Israel.

We live under the threat of terrorism because Islamofacists believe that our modern globalised world is an abomination to Allah. By attacking transport targets they hope to roll back to clock of globalisation to the good old days of circa 1400.

There is no concession that will alter the terrorists course. There is no concession we could offer that would not devalue the lives lost in London yesterday.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

I'll add other updates later but for now I'm using Memeorandum and a couple of other sources to compile an update of news articles and blog posts from today. News articles/Editorials: NRO AP Financial Times CNN TCS The Telegraph WSJ...

Really bad news. This Iranian commentator on Middle Eastern affairs, Amir Taheri, says that the Islamofascists must convert the world to Islam or die. They cannot be reasoned with, they feel no pity, they absolutely will not stop.

I dont think the al-Zawahiri doctrine or the bin Laden doctrine is winning anything. BinLaden killed 3000 on 9/11, and lost an entire country as a safe haven. Almost 4 years later he kills maybe 100, and I preict it is going to make the British suppo...

One more Churchill quote for those that still actually believe that we should stop fighting these maniacs. An appeaser is...