More on London

British authorities have readjusted their estimates of when the three bombs that went off in the Underground detonated. They are now asserting that the three exploded almost simultaneously, at 8:50 am, probably with a timer device. Up to now, the belief was that they had exploded more than a half hour apart. The bombs were not very big, they were also not homemade, and they “show a degree of professionalism” according to one account. Officials are still reluctant to announce that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks despite the claims of the faction in Europe. Thus far they are closing off no avenues.

As of right now the death toll is at around 50, but there are many bodies that have not been recovered, and so that grim number is expected to rise. Despite the reticence of many, obviously there is also a great deal of grieving going on in London and across this island. As happened in New York after 9/11, ad hoc memorials have emerged, alongside walls of posters with the pictures of loved ones who are still missing. The reality is that with each passing day, those missing will be categorized as among the dead.

Survivors of one of the bombings are repeating a story about a man who kept “fiddling with a bag.” He apparently went back a dozen or so times. Authorities believe that the bomb was probably in a bag and in any case was not strapped to the perpetrator. Information comes out in dribs and drabs, but the more we learn, the more we understand that this was a highly coordinated attack by killers who had trained for that moment. That they did not kill more is in a way, then, shocking. One imagines that the perpetrators of these dastardly acts imagined a death toll akin to that on 9/11.

Yesterday I talked about al Qaeda’s whitewashing of its own history with the claims that its actions were aimed at British withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Many seem to be buying this line, apparently utterly unaware that al Qaeda long ago declared war on the west, well before we had a military presence in those countries. Today Robert Fisk of the Independent muddles history, misunderstands chronology, and confuses causality with correlation:

"If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes,"we will bomb yours." There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush's"war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.

And it's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that"they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear"."They" are not trying to destroy"what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush - and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali.

There is only one real problem with this interpretation: It is utterly wrong.

Al Qaeda has never hidden its contempt for “what we hold dear.” Yes, they would like the British and Americans to withdraw from Iraq, but since Osama bin Laden and his minions engaged in a number of attacks on western targets throughout the 1990s, it seems probable that British troop presence in Iraq provides a convenient justification, but not a persuasive explanation for the events of Thursday morning. Knowing what we do about al Qaeda, how its avowed goal is to destroy infidels and create a global Islamic Caliphate, it is hard to believe that someone like Fisk could be taken in by such transparent rubbish. Keep in mind that in February 1998 Osama’s “World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders," which basically serves as an umbrella organization to coordinate radical Islamic terrorism, issued a statement declaring it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens--civilian or military--and American allies everywhere.

Some, such as Fisk, would yield in the face of such terrorism, hoping that by giving in to their demands we might forestall more and worse attacks. But that is to misread al Qaeda and its allies. It is not to take them seriously when they say that it is their obligation to kill us. It is monumentally naïve and utterly shortsighted. Well meaning as the advocates of withdrawal in hopes of safety may be, they advocate policies that will lead to more, not fewer deaths at the hands of a force that has shown time and again that it is relentless and will not be appeased.