I agree...I would also add the word Fanatical before the word Muslim.

OK, let me add a bit more here.

So, this time with these guys in London it is looking like the link is to Pakistan and North to Afganastan and the Taliban/Al Quida. Not Iran, not Iraq, not other countries that get thrown into this. And the guy who sits in those damn mountians in that region laughing his ass off at us is Bin Laden. What happened? Why are we still in Iraq and then on the other end allowing Bin Laden to be some sort of martyr and inspiration to these young fanatics (and these are NOT fascists, that is again misleading and does not get us to the REAL guy, Bin Laden)?

The circle of logic of fanatic Islam goes like this:

1. They are pissed off at the world; not a whole lot to do about that except keep your eye on them and try to prevent them from killing innocent people.

2. The US moving into Iraq only confirms all thier beliefs about how the west works and allows certain Muslims in the middle to better believe in the fanatic's cause.

3. Getting Bin Laden early would have pissed the extremists off but would have been a great relief to the people in the middle who would normally see him as fanatical. It would have made the Western cause for peace far more viable and even moving into Iraq would have fallen further down the priority list. Multi-National companies would even be looked at more favorably at that point.

4. The longer we stay in Iraq and/or antagonise Iran (with Bin Laden being able to interpret everything that is going on in the middle east like some prophet) only makes things worse and encourages younger, non-educated Islamic fanatics to give thier lives and take as many 'infidel' lives as possible.

Anything that does not address this cycle of logic of the fanatics at this point is a smoke screen and means nothing.