Good on ya Deuc, as the other poster said. ditto.

Let's scrutinize the one point about 'Islam' and its laws/scriptures, in relation to 'modernizing' or changing.

Let me first though, make a point about the Christian faith. Since Christ is the fulfillment of the law, the guiding approach/modus operandi of all Biblical Christians, will be (or should be) the 'relationship' with Him. As Paul said "For me, to live is Christ, to die is gain" (Phillipians) and "It is no longer 'I' who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Galatians)-its the concept of the exchanged life. One more :) be patient.

"For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son...

so that in us, the righteous requirements of the law, might be met in us."

All I'm saying there, is that its about 'relationship' not 'regimentation'.

Hence, I am always comparing in my mind, and heart the Islamic approach which even tells you how to wipe your butt :) i.e. a law for all human behavior/activity. "legalism" at its worst.

By now u might be forgiven in thinking this was a 'quick bible bash' but now to my point. Islam rules by Sharia- i.e. Law.
I strongly urge you mate, to explore some Islamic literature,(just suft a bit) and it will become abundantly clear very quickly that the Quran (and the hadith not far behind) are the 'be all and end all of Gods final communication to man' in their view. The whole Islamic state from top to bottom will be based on that foundation.

"liberal/moderate" Muslims are mostly:

1/ Minorities in other countries.
2/ States which have close and dependant economic ties/fear military superiority from the USA. (e.g Saudi Arabia)
3/ States which have 'friendly' (though unpopular) heads of state (Pakistan)

In all these, the true agenda drivers are lurking just below the surface, they who aspire to Sharia in all countries.

Hence, our strategic presence in Iraq etc and justification for exerting extended control. Same old x 2 :)

As usual, the commentaries in these postings appear to deal with specifics rather than the root cause of Islamic terrorist attacks against the West. Some even focus on the Western movement of the Turkish Ottomans, Islamic remnants still evident causing the recent Balkan wars, the local Islamics suffering almost total genocide.

However, such wars are only a side issue as concerns terrorist attacks against the West, as any political philosopher will relate. It is believed the best term pertaining to the cause of today's terrorism is "blowback", actually a payback term first used by the CIA, who did warn as far back as the 1970s that their undercover murderous tactics not only against the Middle East Arabs but also in black Africa and South America were expected to cause problems in the future.

Just putting ourselves in Islamic shoes should make us far less shocked or surprised about the hatred of Muslims against the US and us Australian allies today. A letter in yesterday's West Australian newspaper, termed George Bush and Co barefaced liars concerning US troops moving out of Iraq and leaving the people in sole possession, when the Americans have already constructed at least five military fortress reminding one of the Christian castles of the Crusades.

You could bet your bottom dollar that democracy in Iraq will be a colonialist-style guided one, which these days can operate from even a couple of aircraft carriers with guided missiles at the ready. If only that rotten crowd in the White House would be truthful and stop misleading the Iraqis, and even the Australian public with hopeful but false reports.

The latest reports indicate that four of the London bombers may have been tricked into blowing themselves up with what they thought was a timer. If this is so then it tells us two things.

1) That the supply of fanatics willing to seek martyrdom may not be as abundant as first thought. These guys had to be tricked into doing the job. If this is the case then the deployment of troops to Iraq, as bait for would be bombers from the rest of the region, appears to be working. They were attracted to a more accessible target but have died in greater numbers and a lot more cheaply than the 9/11 culprits.

2) The supply of "bomb mules", especially in the western islamic community, is likely to dry up even more once it is made widely known that they are likely to end up very dead very quickly. This particular tool in the Al-Qaeda arsenal can be substantially negated by information, market knowledge. They face the classic problem faced by spivs and liars the world over, an absence of repeat business.

Is it possible that many of the suicide bombers in Iraq, especially those targeting fellow muslims, have actually been tricked into killing themselves too?

There are two significant documents so far not quoted that contribute some evidence to this debate.

The First is Robert Pape's book 'Dying to Win'. While Bush, Blair, Howard and others of the 'Coalition of the Willing' attribute terrorist bombings to crazed religous fundamentalists, Pape's extensive research says otherwise. See for example http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html.

The second is the Chatham House report 'Security, Terrorism and the UK'. For those who do not know CH, here is their brief - "Chatham House is one of the world's leading organizations for the analysis of international issues. It is membership-based and aims to help individuals and organizations to be at the forefront of developments in an ever-changing and increasingly complex world."

The CH report makes a strong case linking the terrorists bombings to Britain's part in the 'war on terrorism'. See http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/niis/BPsecurity.pdf.

I'm inclined to listen to the results of quality research.

Blatant

The main lesson from the London bombings is that we in the west have a fifth column in our midst. This will either be eliminated by the muslim community, or we will do it for them.

The second thing that is relevant for Australia is the question as to whether our participation in the war in Iraq will make terrorist attacks more likely. The answer to that is that we were attacked in Bali in 2002, before Iraq took place. The rationale then was given as our action in East Timor. You can only be condemned once.

The real question is not whether there is better or worse security - that is entirely subjective and politically driven - the real question facing Blair is whether the war(s) has/have been worth the increased risks. I think that's a tough call? Being British PM is a tough trade if you ask me - do you fancy being Blair next week? Apart from Gordon - not many want that level of stress!