Britons and Blair overreacting to terror attacks ?

Ok, that was a bit of a rambling post, but I think you get the idea.

I don’t think this makes a lot of sense. The UK is not the US’s lap dog. The two countries (or at least their governments) happen to agree a lot on foreign policy, which makes sense historically. You might remember that in the first gulf war, GHW Bush looked more like Maggie Thatcher’s bitch.

Not according to the Muslims I know who have lived in both places. They’re mostly Pakistanis, and reported that “Paki bashing” was quite the national sport.

Back to the OP, though, I am dissappointed in Blair’s response. I was hoping for something a little more measured, perhaps setting an example for our drugstore cowboy president. On the other hand, Britain’s a pretty small country by our standards, and much more porous to foreign influxes than the US (not counting Latin America, of course), so I can appreciate the sense of urgency.

Rashak Mani tell about the terror threat in Brazil and your leader’s reaction to it.

Racial tension has always been present in Britain… but when I lived in London it didn’t seem as bad as they make it out. I guess in the suburbs and outside London its worse. Still there wasn’t islamic terrorism. Something smoldering before maybe… but never aflame.

I certainly thought Blair would make a better example… and though I respect him a lot… I think he got himself into a sad situation with little ability to change it. As for the sense of urgency… that is exactly what I think is not yet necessary. Extreme muslims have been in Britain a long time… so admit it was wrong to tolerate them so long… but don’t make it into a political issue to “calm” the population IMO. It makes it into a witch hunt… even if legitimate.