The question ought to be who in the Middle East is next? Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, The Palestinians?

The Olympics are coming up. There was major concern wether Greece could handle to security expressed four, five, six years back. The risk has escalated, significantly, since then.

Munich?

Sarajevo. Before the fall... Haven't the Greeks already accepted US/EU/NATO help in the security department? EVERYTHING IS A TARGET, CL.

>>Haven't the Greeks already accepted US/EU/NATO help in the security department?<< Accepted, hell. They begged for it.

"Since when was the Vatican City in Italy?" Psst! hey sparky! Vatican City is an enclave of Rome - and last I checked, Rome was in Italy... Get a clue. E.

"...and an American company funded Al Qaeda" Oh do explain. Some conspiracy theories are just too rich not to hear. Otherwise, you are being ridiculous. As for funding of the IRA by some American citizens, I do and always have thought that the Feds should have cracked down on that, but Mass. has two rather influential Senators (Kennedy and Kerry) that potentially block any past action that might have offended the Irish American community. Still, you are referring to a small minority of the US population, acting without the approval (and literally without the knowledge) of the overwhelming majority. You are not dealing with a matter of official state policy, nor are such actions going to be overlooked in the future. You can no more blame America for the IRA than you can blame Spain for ETA, and Britain is far more culpable than America is.

Dear Blackleaf, don't kid yourself. Your statement is the kind of thing the terrorist want us to believe: "If I don't do this or that they may forget about me...". Did Morocco have troops in Iraq last year?, no, they didn't, nevertheless it had a terrorist attack in Casablanca. Was Turkey in favour of the war in Iraq last year?, no, it wasn't, but it had a terrorist attack in Istambul. There was even war in Iraq in 2002?, no, there wasn't. However, 200 Australians died because a terrorist attack in Bali. And what about 9/11?, there was no war in Iraq then neither... Russia is not safe because ot its opposition to the war in Iraq (do you remember the story about terrorist taking hostages in a theater in Moscow?). France is not safe neither (they had a wave of islamist terrorist attacks in the 90's, nothing says that can't happen in the future again). Saudi Arabia is not safe neither (do you remember the attacks in Riadh?). To be naive and forget easily it's a bad combination in our times.

To follow what's going on, it's useful to look back at what the group has said not just in the last news cycle, but over the years. What are they about? What do they want? a-Q is looking to purify Islam from corrupting influences of the West and corrupted Muslims. It wants to set off and, preferably, lead a Great Jihad, in which angry, righteous muslims rise and destroy the people and influences which are corrupting Islam. Everything else is a tactic towards achieving these ends. They may like to kill Westerners, Crusaders, Jews, but, in their own ideology, this is a means to an end. You're looking at them through the eyes of a Westerner, trying to calculate military advantage and disadvantage. That's not how they're thinking. They could, in there own terms, justify not targetting one country among their enemies to try to gain a tactical advantage. But, since they're not waging the type of war you have in mind, whether or not they do so is going to flow from different considerations than you have in mind. France is a tempting target because it has a huge muslim population. The largest in Europe, IIRC. And, that population is badly treated, sullen, and angry before a-Q ever showed up. Thus, it may well be reasoned by a-Q, that actions in France are likely to stir widespread support for the Jihad among this large community, and, so, be worthwhile even if they risk pushing France solidly into the American camp. Indeed, there is another, related line of reasoning which suggests that a-Q would be *happy* if one or another Western country was induced, by terrorism, into reacting so harshly that the reaction, itself, led muslims, in turn, to becoming so angry that they rose in Jihad.