If ever America wanted evidence of losing the War on Terrorism here it is? To win the war would mean to get rid of the threat of aggressive action against America. We are not so naïve as to think that it matters too much if it happens elsewhere such as Iraq or Spain or Britain. Do we believe that sleep will be lost if we leave Iraq and there is a civil war and a dissection of that country into the three followings? Will we keep a count of the deaths anymore than we do already care about Iraqi fatality figures? Now America wants to prevent Brits and Pakistanis from being able to visit easily. The rewards of backing America are WHAT? Virgin Airlines will fail so will help Delta no doubt. Orlando will suffer considerably? Nice way to treat your friends? The recent story of a Brit terrorist shows that nothing done in Iraq has done a thing to reduce the likelihood of extremism coming to America. In fact the main ally of America with a history of quiet settlement of Muslims now has disquiet from her peoples from the backing of bad American Policy, coupled with misplaced trust in values of policing and occupational handling. I am not saying that Brit occupiers are squeaky clean and indeed I experienced occupation of Germany for five years 1961-66 and soldiers were awful sometimes with their lost values of being abroad. Don’t invade/occupy unless fearsome necessary? How can we mistreat and occupy and then call them terrorists for resisting?

What does occupational history tell us? My island of Guernsey was occupied in WW11 and was under the jackboot. Parisian Free French were awesome insurgents. We are in denial of it even being an ‘occupation’. We like to include the ‘resistance’ actions in Iraq as terrorism and even try to justify the invasion by recounting the figures of resistance to American controls. What would WE be like were the shoe on the other foot?

These are the facts: There is more hatred for America and her policies and her bias than ever before. There are more radicals willing to die to revenge policies and actions they consider offensive to their brethren than ever before. There is little threat from a poor dustbowl community with no services and an awful life in Iraq but brethren allover the world are revengeful towards America. Be it Saudi Arabia or Syria or Iran or Jordan or Pakistan, Arabian enemies are being made day after day. Winning the hearts and minds is not talked about much. Certainly not by the machismo right and talk radio jocks who know little about actual battle and diplomacy. These radicals with revenge on their minds will not come through the Mexican open border as none of the 9/11 bunch did. They can secretly and quietly harbor their grudges whist going thru the American Motions of ‘acceptance’ of capitalist values and just bide their time.

I hate to offer this as it has an obnoxious element to it but to my friends it has to be said. Regis & Kelly had a conversation about how tremendous it is that there has not been any attacks on mainland USA in nearly six years. I cannot understand that mentality. How often does a group of radicals HAVE to make a point any bigger than getting possession of four aircraft and aiming them as a weapon to bring down THE two most iconic buildings in the world? They can revel and feed off that for the next two decades and also on the insecurity that now exists for many Americans and their Government. Be assured though that getting Osama matters little. These radicals who are all over the world and CAN seep into America quite easily cannot be reduced by brutality and heavy handedness in offshore prisons or in secret renditions. Only a fair appraisal of how we deal Universally with Muslims and Arab Nations will lessen and quiet the unrest and anger that exists in the Muslim world for America. Fighting fire with fire is never going to work and there is not going to be any winning in Iraq or Iran or indeed anywhere that we feel inclined to show our muscle?

Story of London Pakistani Brits:

U.S. Seeks Closing of Visa Loophole for Britons

LONDON, May 1 — Omar Khyam, the ringleader of the thwarted London bomb plot who was sentenced to life imprisonment on Monday, showed the potential for disaffected young men to be lured as terrorists, a threat that British officials said they would have to contend with for a generation. Omar Khyam pictured in northern Pakistan in 2003. On a previous visit, he took up the cause of Kashmir. But the 25-year-old Mr. Khyam, a Briton of Pakistani descent, also personifies a larger and more immediate concern: as a British citizen, he could have entered the United States without a visa, like many of an estimated 800,000 other Britons of Pakistani origin.

American officials, citing the number of terror plots in Britain involving Britons with ties to Pakistan, expressed concern over the visa loophole. In recent months, the homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, has opened talks with the government here on how to curb the access of British citizens of Pakistani origin to the United States. At the moment, the British are resistant, fearing that restrictions on the group of Britons would incur a backlash from a population that has always sided with the Labor Party. The Americans say they are hesitant to push too hard and embarrass their staunch ally in the Iraq war, Prime Minister Tony Blair, as he prepares to step down from office.

Among the options that have been put on the table, according to British officials, was the most onerous option to Britain, that of canceling the entire visa waiver program that allows all Britons entry to the United States without a visa. Another option, politically fraught as it is, would be to single out Britons of Pakistani origin, requiring them to make visa applications for the United States. Rather than impose any visa restrictions, the British government has told Washington it would prefer if the Americans simply deported Britons who failed screening once they arrived at an airport in the United States, British officials said. The British also screen at their end, and share intelligence with the Americans. But Washington feels strongly, Mr. Chertoff has said, that it has the right to build controls against terrorists from Britain who do not have a prior criminal record. Precisely the kind of man Mr. Khyam was until he was arrested in early 2004 and put on trial for plotting to blow up targets like a major London nightclub and a popular suburban shopping mall. For its part, the British government looks with dismay at the frequency with which Britons travel to their ancestral land of Pakistan — an estimated 400,000 trips a year — where a small minority, like Mr. Khyam, link up with extremist groups and acquire training in weapons and explosives.

Foreign office officials have said they have discussed measures with the Pakistani Embassy in London, which grants Pakistani passports to Britons of Pakistani descent, to consider tightening the rules for Pakistani travel documents. In Washington, an expert on terrorism and Pakistan, Bruce Riedel, who served on the under President Clinton and in the early Bush administration, and who recently retired after 30 years in the Central Intelligence Agency, said that Mr. Khyam was perfect material for Al Qaeda. “He is the classic U.K.-Pakistani connection that Al Qaeda has focused on since 9/11,” said Mr. Riedel, who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “His U.K. passport gives him international mobility. His training at a camp run for Kashmiris by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency gives him expertise. Al Qaeda gives him direction.” The trial that ended Monday with the conviction of Mr. Khyam and four other Muslim men on conspiracy charges did not establish whether Mr. Khyam or his colleagues belonged to a Qaeda cell. But the head of counterterrorism at Scotland Yard, Peter Clarke, said after the verdict, the investigations into the bomb plot had given “a new understanding of the Al Qaeda threat to Britain.”

At his sentencing, the judge, Sir Michael Astill, described Mr. Khyam as “the energy behind the conspiracy,” the man who attracted other young Muslims to the plan, and inspired them, and who knew how to shuttle from Britain to Pakistan for terrorism training. From Mr. Khyam’s own testimony, as well as a cascade of official intelligence surveillance presented during the yearlong trial, a portrait of determination and ruthlessness emerged. As a teenager, Omar became entranced by jihadist ideology. He moved on to the cause of Kashmir, and was then piqued by 9/11 and the Iraq war, things that inspired and angered other Britons with Pakistani roots. But he in the end turned to attacking Britain, where he was born and raised. Asked on the witness stand his reaction to 9/11, Mr. Khyam did not disguise his delight. “I was happy,” he recalled in his south England accent. “America was, and still is, the greatest enemy of Islam. I was happy that America had been hit because of what it represented against the Muslims, but obviously 3,000 people died, so there were mixed feelings.”

U.S. Seeks Closing of Visa Loophole for Britons Mr. Khyam testified that his parents migrated to Britain from Pakistan in the 1970s, before his birth. He came from a family, he said, with a proud heritage of service, first in the British Army in Pakistan, then in the army of the newly independent Pakistan, and also in the intelligence services.

His parents were not particularly religious, he said, a pattern typical among Pakistani immigrants to Britain where the new generation, often turned off by what they see as the loose morals of binge drinking and broken marriages, has proven to be more devout than their elders. At the age of 10, his father, a successful businessman with a textile factory in Karachi, left his mother and moved to Belgium, leaving behind Omar, the eldest, and two small children. His mother’s English was poor. Quickly, Omar became the man of the household, organizing the finances, and bossing his siblings. Instead of enrolling in the local school where most of the students were South Asian, he attended a mostly white, government-run school, and led a middle-class British life. He did relatively well in his final school exams and enrolled in college but, distracted by his larger cause, never followed through on his studies or sought steady employment.

By 1998, he had taken his first steps into the realm of radical Islam, when he was introduced to Al Muhajiroun, a group led in Britain by Omar Bakri Mohammed, in his neighborhood in West Sussex. The group indoctrinates followers in the virtues of an Islamic state and indoctrinates a strict code of personal behavior. It expects members to shun friends who do not practice strict Islamic mores. On the political side, Mr. Khyam calmly told the court about how he watched bloody videotapes of Russian soldiers blowing up mosques in Chechnya, and of atrocities by the Serbs against Muslims in Bosnia, which were shown to members of Al Muhajiroun. But he soon tired of Al Muhajiroun, he said, and yearned for something more than the group’s desire for an Islamic state in Britain, which he deemed to be “not realistic.” He took his first trip to Pakistan as a vacation with his mother and his brothers in 1999, when he was just a teenager. There, he experienced firsthand what he had heard about at home: the cause of Kashmir, the border area claimed by both Pakistan and India. He met with a group, Al Badr Mujahedeen, that fought, he said, to free Kashmir from Indian control.

In early 2000, Mr. Khyam was back in Pakistan. He found a training camp for fighters being sent to Kashmir that was run, he said, by Inter-Services Intelligence. According to his testimony, the American-led war in Afghanistan, and later Iraq, dramatically colored his views. Those wars, he said, were wars against Islam, and he hoped to join the fight. “By this time I had a lot of contact with the I.S.I. because of my family,” he said, referring to the Pakistani intelligence service. He visited the headquarters of the agency in Islamabad, and was told that what the Americans wanted “is to stop anyone who calls for the return of an Islamic state or a caliphate.”

From 2002 on, Mr. Khyam said he shuttled between Britain and Pakistan, culminating in a trip in 2003 to a training camp in Malakand in the North-West Frontier Province with five of his fellow defendants, including his younger brother, Shujah, who was acquitted.

By late 2003, according to prosecution evidence, Mr. Khyam had decided from his trips to Pakistan to concentrate on a plot in Britain that would involve a fertilizer bomb. Mr. Khyam, using some of the organizational skills he had honed as a young man at home, can be heard on surveillance tapes divvying up responsibilities for the plan. Along the way, he found time to marry — in what he called a “religious marriage” — Saira, a Pakistani woman. They finally married in a civil ceremony on March 25, 2004, and a few days later, Mr. Khyam was arrested by the police in a bedroom of a Holiday Inn in England while he was on his honeymoon with his wife.