We all have a particular affection for the place we were born. I am no exception and the place in the world that is special to me is London. Not that I have any real memories of that city that have not come from reading or from films and television. Such is the lot of some one who leaves their homeland as a child. Now whenever I see an episode of the Bill or any of the many British shows on the ABC I wonder about what my life would have been had my parents not decided to bring their family “down under” for a better life
My attention is immediately drawn to any news events that concern London, thus it was one year ago when I heard about the bombings there I was more affected than I was by the far more lethal attacks upon Madrid or New York. On that day last year I could imagine people I know in harms way and it is far more significant when you can identify with the victims of such atrocities. Now I have never accepted as valid the tactic of attacking civilians in any political campaign and I find the motives and justifications claimed by the Islamofacists particularly abhorrent. I have always felt that terror campaigns undermine and invalidate the causes that they seek to promote. I believed this in relation to the IRA, I believed this about the PLO and I believe it now about Hamas and I believe it now about all of the coterie of followers of Osama.
Sadly the only choices with these sort of fanatics is to surrender to their demands, imprison them until they are no longer a threat, or kill them.
We Londoners withstood a far greater attempt to cower us during Hitler’s blitz and it is the stories of how my forebears refused to yield then that makes me all the more sure that we, of the west, have to stand strong against the forces that wish to impose a medieval mindset and theocracy upon the world. We have no choice but to resist this, not for our own sake but for the sake of our children and the world that they will in inherit from us.
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
“We Londoners”? “We”? Nice way to exploit the victims, by pretending to be a Londoner. Trying to clutch some of that gravitas you harp on about, from the dead hands of a few actual Londoners?
What a morbid and parasitic thing to do.
Have a look at this Iain. Tell me what the last symptom is.
Sadly the only choices with these sort of fanatics is to surrender to their demands, imprison them until they are no longer a threat, or kill them.
No offense mate but that is a massive bucket of shit.
The only way you defeat terror in the long term is to address conditions that enable terrorists to recruit members or gain public support.
There will always be fanatics willing to kill for a cause. But that fanatacism does not spread if there is no reason for it to.
I hate everything AQ stands for. But at the same time I can see why it spread like a noxious cancer given the conditions those places were exposed to.
Muslim terror in particular is a hiccup from the cold war because when the soviets left nationalistic struggle groups lost their support and religious zealots stepped up to the plate.
Ireland solved its issue by and large through a peace process that enabled both sides to walk away with something.
Should Palestine be created as an economically viable state – support for terror there will wane greatly.
Then Osama and his fucked in the head ilk with wither on the vine – a sad reminder of the cold war and its knock on effects now ended.
Unfortunately the Americans managed to create a terrorist breeding factory in Iraq so there is plenty of fodder there for terror to grow.
How do you feel about that Iain in your day of London remembrance? Spare a thought for the hundreds and thousands of dead in Iraq bought about as a misguided strike against a ” .. terror ..” state?
Rather there than London?
I expect so. It’s a lot easier to wax lyrical about the death of a few in surroundings familiar than the deaths of thousands more in surrounds you’re not. I know it is for me.
I guess Iain, if you think that civilians should not be targetted then you will strongly condemn the actions of the IDF over many decades!
“We Londoners”, riiiiight. When was the last time you were actually in London, Iain?
Nothing more I want to say, I think Janine hit the nail fair-square on the head.
Oh, except this. Iain, you made on March 26th this year:
I have just sent this little Email to the copyright holder for the image used By Jeremy as his profile photo and avatar :o)
http://boltwatch.blogspot.com/ http://anonymouslefty.blogspot.com/ at these Url’s you will find a chap who is using the the image of Rowan Atkinson in the guise of Edmund Blackadder as his user picture and avatar . THis chap is a Barrrister by the Name of Walter Jeremy Sear and his email is jsear@vicbar.com.au Now he is quite prolific on the internet and he told me that he would continue to use the image until the BBC told him to stop . I think that the way he uses it brings the BBC and Mr Atkinson into disrepute and I suggest that you drop him a line and remind him that he should stop using your copyright image in such a manner.
Best wishes
Iain Hall
Can you now provide us with evidence that:
i. you have obtained permission to use the images contained on this blog, being a destroyed London bus, a redback spider, a captioned image of David Hicks and a teapot
ii. that you have permission to hotlink to these images and thereby use somebody else’s bandwidth.
(Actually, I don’t really give a toss – just highlighting your gross hypocrisy… for the umpteenth time.)
“We Londoners”? “We”? Nice way to exploit the victims, by pretending to be a Londoner( Janine)
“We Londoners”, riiiiight. When was the last time you were actually in London, Iain?(Bridgit)
Strange how the likes of you will say, to any one else, that they should celebrate their ethnic heritage and that it is their right to do so. I was born in London and that gives me the right to identify my self as a Londoner, now and for the rest of my life.
(Actually, I don’t really give a toss – just highlighting your gross hypocrisy… for the umpteenth time.)
Well Bridgit stop pissing into the wind then you have made your point.
Daniel
I condemn the deliberate targeting of all civilians. The IDF does not as a policy target civilians ,the Palestinians on the other hand DELIBERAYELY focus their attacks upon Israeli civilians .which is why I can’t fell any sympathy for their cause.
Mikey
you at least have considered the wider issues and I do understand where you are coming from .I agree that part of the solution to removing the treat of Islomofascism is to improve the lot of Muslims all over the world but there is a basic problem with a branch of a religion that is so focused on the next life that it urges its followers to sacrifice this one.
There will always be fanatics willing to kill for a cause. But that fanaticism does not spread if there is no reason for it to.
This is all well and good Mikey but when they take up the gun or the bomb and embrace the evil ideology then, as I say in the sentence you quote we either submit to their demands, imprison them or we kill them.
The shooting in the head of Palestinian children by IDF snipers, Iain – is it just that they are poor shots?
The current Gaza invasion, Iain, has killed 31 Palestinians including civilians and children. Again, just unlucky, eh?
And the killing of six times as many Palestinians as Iraelis including freedom fighters, women and children since 2000, well they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, did they?
The Israelis are butchers, Iain. And you are obviously infinitely gullible. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.
Cheers!
Daniel
My piece was not about Israel (apart from a passing reference to the PLO) but about the bombings in London .Am I to assume that you are prepared to forgive the London bombers as easily as you seem to forgive suicide bombers from Hamas or Islamic Jihad?
The Israelis are butchers, Iain. And you are obviously infinitely gullible. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.
Over at yours you said we should agree to disagree on the matter of the Israel/Palestine conflict, now in my mind that means we respect that our positions cannot be readily resolved. But I find you over here at my blog running the same line as you do at yours even when my post is not actually about the situation at Gaza.
Frankly I don’t have any idea how true your claims about snipers targeting children may be but you ignore my statement”I condemn the deliberate targeting of all civilians. like wise you seem indifferent to the fact that Palestinian suicide bombers have ,as a primary target chosen Israeli civilians over and over again. As I say in my piece I believe that the deliberateTargeting of civilians by the Palestinians undermines their cause no matter what may have happened in 1948 or 1967 or even last week.
You see Daniel I realise that when you have such a long-standing conflict like the one in Israel. There is guilt on both sides of the fight; you are so passionate for the cause of the Palestinians that you cannot see anything that is reprehensible in the way that they have prosecuted the fight for their cause. So I ask you to with out prevarication tell me if you believe that it is morally acceptable to deliberately target civilians. Because if you tell me that it is not acceptable then you must, if you are the ethical man you purport to be say that the actions of Hamas and Islamic Jihad are wrong in every sense.
I guess the next time that Iain targets “Islamofascist” immigrants in Australia, we’ll have to remind him, as the Australians that host him, that Britania-fascists aren’t welcome in his guest nation either. The sublime hyprocrisy.
I wonder what Andrew Bolt would have to say about foreigners who come here only to stay at home instead of work? I hope you haven’t claimed anything from Centrelink Iain. AB wouldn’t be very impressed I don’t think.
Don’t worry Iain. I’m not a bigot. You can enjoy the tolerance of Australians and you can enjoy our tax dollars. THat’s because I recognise you as an Australian, not a Londoner.
As for your putting of words into my mouth re: ethnic heritage. It’s one thing to have ethnic heritage and another to be ethnic. Also, as an example, I draw your attention to the criteria for Aboriginality that has been discussed around the blogosphere in recent times.
Two criteria come to mind; one being that the individual has to identify as Aboriginal, another says that the community has to accept the individual as Aboriginal.
Somehow, I don’t see Londoners seeing you as being one of them. Even less can I see them appreciating your use of their suffering to parade it like your own. Your claim of affiliation is your right, but it is also the right of others to point out how your claim is an exaggeration.
It’s also people’s right to point out how you are mooching cred from the real victims. Vile.
I tried to enjoy Dr Who on the ABC tonight, but your shameful whoring of the dead came to mind when seeing London in peril. I can only imagine the sickness a Londoner close to the violence would feel after seeing your display.
Janine
You have no idea do you? If you as some one like you, is Australian born had spent most of your life in another country would that mean you would not be entitled to identify with other Aussies who had remained in their birth place? Of course you would take great offence if some one were to say that your identifying as an Aussie would offend them.
Now you accused me of lying about being a Londoner and you provide some crap argument about how we define who may call himself or herself an aboriginal. If that is going to be the standard of your comments I cordially invite you to go away and be fecund. Because another thing that we Londoners have little patience for is bullshit from self righteous dingbats like you.
Well Bridgit stop pissing into the wind then you have made your point.
That you are a grandiose, snivelling hypocrite? Yes, I think that point has been delivered and understood.
Answer the question: when were you last in your ‘hometown’ of London? Failure to respond will be taken as meaning you have never been back there.
When some one tells you to stop pissing into the wind it is because you are making your self look silly as you do here.
As part of a larger stoush with Jeremy Sear I sent that email to the BBC so what? You think it makes me hypocritical because I have used photos from google to illustrate pieces at my blog do you? Grow up there is a difference between the casual use of a photo to illustrate a piece and using the image of an actor as your profile photo for a political blog with a moderate readership.
My unauthorised use of images is at best a misdemeanour where as the way that Jeremy uses the picture of Rowan Atkinson is a far more serious matter because the way he uses it could reflect badly upon the subject of the photo. Which is exactly what I said in the email.
What a Hypocrite you are Bridgit if I were a black feller who had been born in some remote place but had grown up in say, for arguments sake , Melbourne , you would not for one moment question my right to say I am a xxxx fella . You would not say you are a Melbournian and you must deny your birthright.
Because I claim, as is my birthright, that I am a Londoner you wish to say that I have to renew that right by visiting on some schedule. Well that would have to be a truly crap line, even by your standards. Now go away for a while Bridgit I will not put up with this sort of crap from you.
“If that is going to be the standard of your comments I cordially invite you to go away and be fecund.”
In other words, “Janine, if you can’t come up with an argument I can rebutt without flying into a hissy fit, then go away and stop exposing me. Boo-woo hoo-hoo, wha-ha ha-ha.”
You really don’t get it do you Iain. Nobody is going to be fooled into thinking you are a Londoner because you lived there before you can remember and because you have watched The Bill. Until you come up with something a bit more substantial than no remembered experience of being a Londoner, I invite you to stop name dropping the dead.
Incidentally, my first home was in Padstow, but you don’t see me calling myself Cornish. I’m an Aussie.
And while we are on the topic of your assumptions (re: my place of birth and my opinions on ethnic heritage), you once stated that you were beyond a doubt old enough to be my father. So how old am I Iain? Call on that imagination from whence all your “facts” come to enlighten us all.
I’ll help you out, my age starts with a “4”.
A Londoner is someone who inhabits or originates from London. Although the term Londoner is generally accepted as covering all people from Greater London, it is sometimes used to mean more narrowly a ‘Cockney’, and tradition has it that true Cockneys are only those who are born within the sound of Bow Bells (i.e., the peal of the church bells of the parish church at St Mary-le-Bow, Cheapside, London).
from Wikapedia which you are so fond of as a source of all definitions.
Until you come up with something a bit more substantial than no remembered experience of being a Londoner, I invite you to stop name dropping the dead.
This would have to be one of your more nutty comments where have I name-dropped the dead? So according to you I am not allowed to write about how I feel about what happened in London a year ago because that is what this post is about I mention no names at all I did not even talk about the number of dead and injured.
Now just because you have no particular affection for Padstow does not mean that others like myself do not have affection for the place where they were born and feel an affinity for the place that is not dimmed by time or distance.
Grow up there is a difference between the casual use of a photo to illustrate a piece and using the image of an actor as your profile photo for a political blog with a moderate readership.
There’s no difference whatsoever, except in your warped mind. Mr Lefty does it and is castigated; you do it and it’s fine or a ‘misdemeanour’. You are a hypocrite of the highest proportion; I think that has been clearly demonstrated.
And your ‘Londoner’ bullshit doesn’t wash either. You were born there – so what – it’s obvious you’ve never been back there or you’d have answered the question. I’ve probably spent more time there than you, and I don’t presume to consider myself a native. My guess is that you know jack shit about London beyond what you see on The Bill, and not much more about the people who live there. London-born you may be but a Londoner you are not.
I am a Melburnian because I live in Melbourne but I don’t deny my birthright because I wasn’t born in Melbourne – that’s just your wild presumption at work. And yes, I would recognise a ‘blackfella’ as being such no matter where he was born, because being an indigenous Australian is a race and not a nationality like being from London or being British.
You are seriously starting to lose it on these blogs Iain.
And yes, I would recognise a ‘blackfella’ as being such no matter where he was born, because being an indigenous Australian is a race and not a nationality like being from London or being British.
I don’t know wether to condemn you for being such a patronising bigot or laugh at the shallowness of your argument. According to you some one who is a blackfella may not be challenged in his claim to be say a koori even if he has spent little time in his birthplace or how shallow his connection to his culture may be. Where as a Londoner who’s forebears were Londoners may not likewise claim and affirm their heritage. You see the concept of “race” is a rather nebulous one and in some disrepute in these days of DNA analysis that has shown that the differences between different peoples is really very much smaller than appearances might suggest.
You are seriously starting to lose it on these blogs Iain.
What I am beginning to loose is patience with your self-righteous bullshit Bridgit.
A Londoner is someone who inhabits or originates from London. Although the term Londoner is generally accepted as covering all people from Greater London, it is sometimes used to mean more narrowly a ‘Cockney’, and tradition has it that true Cockneys are only those who are born within the sound of Bow Bells (i.e., the peal of the church bells of the parish church at St Mary-le-Bow, Cheapside, London).
Anger and grief amid Gaza rubble
By Martin Patience
BBC News, Beit Lahiya
Ali Khatar, 71, opened his front door for the first time in two days to find his kitchen wall completely destroyed and the engine of his minibus sheared off by an Israeli tank.
Ali Khatar
Ali Khatar’s home and vehicle were damaged as Israel fought militants
For 48 hours, Mr Khatar, his wife, daughter, and two grandchildren, huddled in the back room of their house as Israeli tanks and soldiers fought Palestinian militants in the street outside.
Whenever the family heard gunfire they dived to the floor, fearful that a bullet would penetrate the house’s breezeblock walls.
But by Saturday morning, the Israeli army had pulled out of Beit Lahiya, leaving churned-up roads and agricultural plots; damaged water pipes and electricity lines; and demolished walls and shattered windows.
“We were like prisoners. The children were living in fear,” says Mr Khatar, standing beside his front door, which is now lying on the side of the road.
Thought this piece from London might be of interest to you, Iain.
Cheers!
Still can’t answer my question eh Daniel?
So you want the militaristic occupiers to be exonerated for the death and destruction they cause to civilians because they wear uniforms and you want me to condemn those who are struggling against occupation using whatever means they have.
There were three civilians killed by an Israeli missile strike overnight, Iain, including a four year old girl. Is her life worthless while an Israeli life is beyond price? Your values seem a little warped, mate!
P.S. Have a look at the picture on my site, Iain, then tell me about Israeli humanity.
No Daniel
What does it profit any one that they win the world and loose their soul in the process?
I want you to accept that the DILBERATE killing of civilians by ANY belligerents in a conflict is wrong. But you are so wedded to the Palestinian cause you are willing to make excuses for Hamas and co.
you want me to condemn those who are struggling against occupation using whatever means they have.
This I read as you supporting suicide bombing against civilians, because they are Jews. You shame your name when you do this.
Do you likewise support the men who committed the atrocity at Belsen?
I think I’ve finally got what you are trying to say, Iain. Because the Israelis say that their policy is that they don’t kill civilians (even if they do so and in large numbers), they are the good guys. Because Hamas says that, because they are under occupation, that any Israeli is a legitimate target, they are the bad guys.
So, one assumes that, using your logic, if Hamas declared that they no
longer target civilians but said, should an Israeli bus hold a large number of civilians, that they thought the bus was full of soldiers and they are sorry for any colateral damage, then they would also become the good guys. Shame Hamas is so honest. Gives them a bad name!
This line of argument is, of course, what the Americans say when they drop cluster bomb and use depleted uranium explosives and kill lots and lots of civilians (both now and into the future). ‘We’re so sorry for the collateral damage, we didn’t mean it, it’s not our policy,’ they say.
Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! Only a complete moron or someone completely without humanity (or both) would accept this false argument and defend it.
Only a complete moron or someone completely without humanity (or both) would accept this false argument and defend it.
To be fair, I don’t think Iain is completely without humanity…
Daniel
In any modern war we have a generally accepted notion that it is legitimate to target the opposing sides infrastructure, its military forces and instruments of government such as the police. Common civilians and particularly children are considered non-legitimate targets.
Are you with me so far? Can we agree on this ethical point? Killing children and civilians, by any one in a war is BAD.
The evidence very strongly supports the notion that Palestinian suicide bombers have as a policy chose to explode their bombs on busses, in night clubs or in cafe’s where they know that the majority of casualties will be civilians. Now if you support my first notion that killing civilians per say is bad / evil/un ethical in a war how can you justify supporting the tactic of sending suicide bombers into buses clubs or cafe’s?
Now if I were to find that the IDF were targeting Palestinian buses cafes or night clubs I would be just as scathing but they don’t The I DF focus their attacks on combatants that some civilians are killed is tragic but there is a whole world of difference between civilians killed by accident and civilians killed as the primary aim of an attack.
It seems to me you are upholding a double standard here .On one hand you decry the death of Palestinians civilians and children (as I do) but you use the size of the IDF as a justification for Hamas killing Israeli civilians.
You will notice that I have not gone any where near the justice of either sides of this conflict’s claims with regard to the actual real-estate because that is another question entirely.
Bridgit.
you are just one insult away from me deleting any future comments .
Oh Iain, you are scaring me so!
If I’d been under brutal occupation for nearly forty years and lived with the fact that my kids and me had no future and were forced to live in constant fear and privation I’d want to kill the bastards that were responsible and I wouldn’t care a stuff about what their age and gender was either!
If you were a Palestinian, Iain, you’d sing a very different song! Sitting safe and comfortable in Australia as you are, it’s easy for you to pontificate.
What Israel is doing in Gaza at this moment in time is nothing short of completely wrong. They are punishing 1.4 million people for a kidnapping of a single soldier. They are running jet planes to sonic boom the area to make kids piss their pants. They have taken out the electricity, the sewer system, and kidnapping half the government – oh and killed about 50 people in the process.
Israel is massively over-reacting to this kidnapping. And they are again, once more, creating or inspiring the genisis of terrorists.
They’re idiots man.
BTW Once people join a terror group and commit terror acts I have no issue with their being taken care of. As long as of course they are extended the norms of rights in a legal system as the criminals they are. Counter assassination is at the end of the day unproductive – especially if they use helicopters and fighter jets with civilian killing missiles to do it.
Daniel,
you are arguing that because they are forty years desperate that they cease to have a responsibility to act ethically or with any decency ? Are you unable to even concede that the killing of civilians is wrong if they are not Palestinians?
You seek to make a moral argument in favour the Palestinians but I have demonstrated in my argument that their tactics are mot moral in any sense that we understand morality. As I have said before when you use immoral means, no matter how noble you believe your cause to be you undermine that for which you fight.
Look at Mikey’s position Daniel. Like you he believes that the cause of the Palestinians has virtue but he has no illusions that the ends justify the means, as you do, he is arguing for a civilised response in the conflict and he expects no quarter to those who take up the gun or the bomb, as they are fair targets. I disagree with his objection, to the IDF targeting militants but I at least respect that his is an honourable position to take.
Your stance, of an unquestioning support for the Palestinian cause no matter how they prosecute their struggle is at best naïve and shallow .at its worst it provides excuses and apologies for that, which is unforgivable.
It’s because of people like you, Iain, that the Israelis have managed to get away with what they already have.
When did you lose one of your eyes?
Iain, I know that fundamentally you are a decent human being. But you are deluded by ideological rhetoric if you argue in defence of current Israeli policy and IDF behaviour in the West Bank. The Israeli response to these kidnappings is wildly exaggerated and will only prompt more violence. Saying that doesn’t make either me or Daniel a supporter of Hamas or a sympathiser for Palestinian suicide bombings – far from it because I deplore these attacks equally as much. But the situation is far more complex and nuanced than the black-and-white, them-or-us scenario that you paint in your posts here. It’s the children who die and suffer – whether at the hands of Palestinian kamikazes or Israeli missiles and helicopter gunships – who should be foremost in your thoughts.
Bridgit, this is part of what Iain said on my site. “I am the first to admit that there is fault on both sides here but ,and it is a big but , when two sides can’t or won’t negotiate a settlement to their conflict the only solution is to step back and let them use their guns .”
So Iain thinks the solution is to let the IDF which is the forth strongest army in the world and has nuclear weapons fight against 1.6 millions civilians with no army, navy or airforce and are protected only by a few militants with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. And may the best man win says our Iain! Conflict solved.
I don’t think our Iain will ever be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize!
Daniel
I am still waiting for your answer to my ethical question.
Do you believe that it is wrong to TARGET civilians in a war?
Wether or not I support one side or the other in this conflict is another issue and I think you bring it up, again, to distract from the fact that you won’t condemn the deliberate targeting of civilians by the Palestinians.
Iain, do you believe that the mass bombing in WW2 of Dresden and Berlin, etc, by the Allies which killed hundreds of thousands of German civilians was ethically wrong?
Do you believe that the dropping of two atom bombs on Japan was ethically wrong?
Do you believe that the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium explosives against Afghans and Iraqis (and napalm against the Vietnamese) is ethically wrong? Should the people who carry out or carried out these activities be tried and executed?
You are very, very selective in your choice of topics re. the question of ethics. I wonder why?
Daniel
I am still waiting for your answer to my ethical question.
Do you believe that it is wrong to TARGET civilians in a war?
Of course it’s wrong to target civilians in a war–it always has been and it always will be. Why do you expect Daniel’s response to your question will be otherwise?
There is also the wider ethical question of whether it is justifiable to engage in a military action knowing that civilians will suffer as a result even if such suffering is not intended.
we, of the west, have to stand strong against the forces that wish to impose a medieval mindset and theocracy upon the world.
I can sympathise somewhat with this sentiment . . .
Daniel
I asked you first but I’ll go through your examples but first a caveat during the second world war it was not possible to precisely aim and hit ground targets from the air. Also intelligence about suitable targets was less reliable than now.
I think that the fire bombing of Dresden was at the very least of questionable value to the total war effort and I tend to believe that the decision to do so was wrong.
The bombing of Berlin, as the command and control centre of the third Reich was justifiable in a total war.
The ethical argument for dropping the two bombs on Japan centres around wether the failure to do so would have resulted in a larger number of deaths over all because the conflict would have been greatly protracted with out the A-bombs. I tend towards believing that the bombing shortened the war and saved lives by doing so..
Cluster bombs, DU projectiles and Napalm against enemy combatants no problem. But Targeted against civilians is unethical and wrong.
Now I have answered your questions so it is your turn to answer mine.
Do you support the TARGETING of civilians by the Palestinians?
Arthur
Of course it’s wrong to target civilians in a war–it always has been and it always will be. Why do you expect Daniel’s response to your question will be otherwise?
I have asked Daniel to make the sort of statement that you have but he have wriggled more than the desperate hare that was caught in my front gate tonight . That poor beast will most likely die from the injuries to its leg and I feel that Daniels inability to embrace the ethical point, as you do, will lead to a spiritual death for the likes of our Daniel.
Yes! When in Rome do as the Romans do…fight fire with fire…do unto others as they do unto you…those who judge are open to judgement themselves…people who live by the sword, die by the sword…the earth will mirror the moon methinks!
Still can’t answer can you Daniel?
Which part of ‘yes’ don’t you understand, Iain?
[…] pm | In the Law, The War On Terror, international politics, world events, Islam | When I first heard about the bombings on 7/7 I was horrified because London is the city where I was born . I am hopeful that the arrests that […]