Would any putative "Al-Qaeda" or Iraqi resistence sound of mind attack common british folks, knowing that a significant majority were, and are, against the war of terror ? Would it not serve their interests better if they tried to do something against those in a position of power and who subscribe to the "GWOT"?

First of all, those in a position of power are genuinely hard to get at. Second, even if you, say, successfully assassiated Bush, that wouldn't necessarily alter policy. All you would get is President Cheney with a licence to kill.

As to why the revolutionary movement we call al-Qaeda would conduct terrorism against Western civilians: Well, that isn't very hard to explain. The long-term objective of this movement is to overthrow the regimes of the Middle East and North Africa and create a vast political unit modeled on the early Islamic caliphate. To achieve this they must accomplish two preliminary goals:

1. Make Western countries, especially but not only the US, terminate their military presence in, arm sales and technological assistance to, bankrolling of, and in some cases, mere tolerance of, said regimes. This has been accomplished to a fair degree. The US is pulling its troops out of Saudi Arabia, has eliminated Saddam Hussein's secular regime, and has introduced sanctions against Syria. (Though OTOH, Egypt remains prime beneficiary of US 'aid' after Israel.)

2. Make Western countries, especially but not only the US, lash out against the Muslim heartland in a way that i) fosters hate among Muslims against the West and its perceived ME puppets; and (ii) destabilises the region, seeding chaos which the revolutionaries can exploit to create failed states and seize power there. This has so far succeeded beyond any reasonable expectation, thanks to the mix of strategic ineptness and greed marking US policymakers and their European lackeys.

Who has the RESOURCES and the CAPABILITY to plant multiple bombs in London, one of the most surveilled cities in the world ? Some putative "islamists" or secret service and special forces operatives of western govts ?

Answer: Well-organized terrorists and noone else have such resources and capability. 'Secret service and special forces operatives of western govts' plainly do not, simply because a) these agencies are largely staffed by professionals dedicated to public service, as opposed to evil, soulless tools who would willingly carry out orders to massacre their fellow citizens for the transient political gain of their civilian bosses; b) even if they weren't, it would be impossible to keep such a devilish conspiracy secret even in one country, let alone in three.

By the way, why expressions like "putative 'al-Qaeda'" and "putatuve 'Islamists'"? Do you doubt, or deny, that these phenomena exist?

How many people were arrested AND sent to jail for the Madrid attentate ? It strikes me as "convenient" that the putative terrorists were all killed by the Sspanish Guardia Civil when they found them.

That they wouldn't allow themselves to be taken alive is to be expected from people who crave 'martyrdom' over any earthly reward, not to mention life in jail.

Was it not weird that the Spanish Govt first adjudicated that attentate to ETA and then to Al-Qaeda, based obviously on their calculation of what would be better for their purposes ?

Not particularly. Just disgusting.

OK, that's all I have time for right now. Maybe someone else can reply to your concerns about the Internet.

And yes, I am indeed accusing you of paranoia and kookery. You're right about that much.

By the way, I'm sure the gays among us would appreciate if you laid off such slurs as 'fags,' as in "G8 fags." But that is up to you.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

As for the first bunch of questions: for Sunni Islamist extremists, Western culture and mixing with Western culture is an explicitely declared danger to Islam. Hence, a reaction hitting Muslims in Britain is a result beneficial for their intent to cut off. (Plus, it is further propaganda boon.) They won't value an anti-war population for much until the war continues - and they could either think that they can impress this population with a terror attack to force withdrawal (if they misinterpret events in Madrid like Americans did) or hold it complicit [one of Bin Laden's early speeches at least was explicit about this] and 'punish' it. Overall, I note: that the Binladenists exploit genuine grievances of Muslims in recruiting, and those even make part of their motivations, doesn't mean that ending the unjustice of occupaton by the West is their ultimate goal.

As for the second, yep, but what does that prove? See also what I wrote in another comment regarding their Iraq war propaganda.

As for the third, in part see what I wrote for the first; and given that the USA & allies are at this point clearly defeated in Iraq & Afghanistan, sending more troops would hasten the process.

The fourth is strongly tin-foil hat. I only respond with two general points: one, the total surveillance police state is not meant to protect you. Two, I think to believe that to defeat anything Western is an exceptional feat is a form of indirect and unconscious chauvinism. We aren't that superior, not at all.

As for the 9/11 jailed, I believe three, or if we include those held in the US gulag system, half a dozen. The rest died in the attacks.

The next is hyper-tin-foil-hat and simply wrong. The firefight wasn't started by the Guardia Civil, nor was the bomb set off by them. And anayway, Aznar was out by that time, so you have a really really big conspiracy in your theory here.

As for ETA than al-Qaida, that was not at all weird, but typical of the lying bastard Aznar, who even wanted election advantage from a terror attack. But he lost when exposed. Now, the only thing I don't understand how this fits into your conspiracy theory.

As for anything traced back, no, it can't. If you sit down in a run-down internet bar somewhere in Karachi, you can very well post anonymously, and a few tricks are enough to significantly delay the time until even the internet bar is tracked down.

As for the next, indeed, you don't know Arabic.

As for the next: they are not in the West, and sites can be changed frequently if they are closed down.

As for the last, since I don't know Arabic either, your request is impossible to fulfill. I guess you should ask around some blogs by Arabic-speakers. (And don't expect the MSM to allow itself be accused of giving bandwidth to extremists by linking to such a site.)

You should know, even with the general argument I made with Iraq in that other comment, I'm not one dismissing conspiracy theories out of hand. Specifically about 9/11, I have checked many of the claims circling around (in the first few months still with the suspicion that they might be real clues). But most turned out to ignore something, quote out of context, or be the result of lack of technical knowledge. (The two latest for me were the Kevin Ryan email casting doubt on the temperature of WTC fires, and the allegedly too small engine wreckage found in the Pentagon - I post the details of what I found if you're interested.) Some of the rest expose misconduct, but one far short for the alleged conspiracy (for example the delays in engine scrambling, or the alleged hijackers found alive stories).

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}