What he said

In the excellent words of the Guardian:

Responding to the bombings "also involves trying to understand why people are drawn to commit such infamous and evil deeds, not merely tightening security to prevent them from happening again. And it means sticking resolutely to all the values that make an open society so worth living in, including tolerance and civil liberty."

Tariq Ali spells it out:

"The principal cause of this violence is the violence being inflicted on the people of the Muslim world. And unless this is recognised, the horrors will continue."

And Robin Cook* offers an alternative:

"The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation. Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us."

My greatest fear is that the Bush agenda will win - that 7 July 2005 will be held up, along with the far greater atrocities of September 11, as a flag to rally support for ongoing aggression. Dudes, it's not working. Start over.

_____
* Note for Yanks** - not the thriller writer, but an MP and former Foreign Secretary, who has always opposed the war in Iraq.
** Yes, Jam, you too. Give me a handy patronising nickname that includes Southerners as well as North, and I'll consider switching, but till then...