If bin Laden had blown up part of a subway in New York and killed fifty people, maybe we wouldn't have done anything drastic, either. Maybe that would have been "below the national limit."

Bin Laden wrecked part of New York, killed almost 3,000 people, attacked our center of national defense, and would probably have nailed the Capitol building if that last plane hadn't been brought down by its passengers. That was above the limit. Where is the limit exactly? Not an easy question.

Where's Britain's limit? Big Ben in ruins in a crater? Parliament filled with nerve gas? A bombing every few days like in Iraq? I don't know.

Not sure what your point is. England is already assisting militarily with Afghanistan and Iraq. It's not like they had to decide whether to go to war or not.

The point I was making is that this fanaticism isn't going to be stopped by the usual political means, that the root of the problem is a set of beliefs, and that those beliefs are openly taught and supported in tolerant nations. The other point I was making is that I don't have a pat answer for this, but that the problem has to be recognized.

There are still way too many people who believe that if it wasn't for Bush and Blair, bad things wouldn't be happening. That's a fantasy.