After London there was Glasgow...
And the response has been sadly predictable, on both sides of the fence.
From the government and figures within the security industry there is more dangerous and unsettling talk of the need to cut back on civil liberties in order to combat terrorism, Blair calling those trying to voice concern at the UK governments infringements under the pretense of protecting us "loopy-loo" which is as silly as it is rudely dismissive.
I thought the whole point was that we didn't alter our way of life and laws to deal with the attacks, I thought that meant that they'd won? Instead of these attacks acting as prompts to question foreign policy and review the bigger picture of world politics, it seems to merely entrench our politicians further and the catch-all response is emitted: "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear."
I mentioned the typical response on both sides and a brief search through various left-leaning forums that are usually very politically astute finds the normal tin foil hat wearing nonsense being churned out, regarding it being a MOSSAD job, or an American false flag opp to increase support for the Iraq war in the UK.
The best (worst) ones though are those that argue that because it wasn't very successful or the bombs weren't good that we shouldn't get our knickers in a twist, which is similar to telling a diabetes sufferer to cheer up because they don't have cancer.
I'm glad the attempts on civilian life were pretty useless so far and that the bombs they made weren't very good but that doesn't stop me caring about why they are attacking us and getting politicians across the board to mark a sea change in our foreign policy but I think people are forgetting that we'd still get attacked anyway.
Appeasement is not the answer, a fair hand is but it must be a fair hand willing to form a fist and smash to pieces anyone who attacks us.
Like I said, serious times...