London Bombings...

What can one say? At least 50 dead, 700 or so injured, 3 subways and a bus destroyed, and -- of course -- al Qaida claiming "credit".

I have been in the safety and security field for going on 30 years, so people occasionally ask me how a nation can prevent terrorist attacks. Short answer: you can't. No matter how closed and controlled a society may be, terrorists can find a way to perform their cowardly attacks. Don't believe me? The Soviet Union and China -- two of the most-controlled countries on earth -- have not been immune from the threat of terrorism. More open societies -- the United States and Europe, for example -- don't have a prayer. The very nature of an open society invites these atrocities.

Tony Blair said yesterday (paraphrasing here), 'these were not kings or heads of state, these were innocent people.' The same thought was echoed today by Queen Elizabeth. Our idiot leader, of course, tried to sound tough and merely sounded like a fool.

"Innocent people" are, of course, a terrorist's primary target. The terrorist believes that by striking indiscriminately, by killing innocent people, by attacking the very openness of the society he fears and despises, he will somehow 'strike terror' into the hearts of the free. He believes his actions will help free societies see the error of their ways and convert to his "true faith". He believes that freedom-loving people will be cowed into abject obeisance to his way of thinking. He feels that because his stern, hateful, loathsome "God" is on his side, he will prevail.

Don't count on it, Abdul.

These mutts attack innocent people because they are cowards. They are afraid to face trained soldiers. They are afraid to face armed men who would have no compunctions about sending these mujaheddin mongrels to their maker. They are afraid to face the results of the cowardly strikes, so they either kill themselves in the process -- what some in the security field refer to as "not-so-smart bombs" -- or they set their bombs to explode when they're safely away, "praying" in their mosques.

A week or so ago, there was a news story about the potential effects of a terrorist attack on a chemical plant here in the US. Casualty estimates ranged from 20,000 to over a million. I'm sure the Islamic extremists drool at the thought of an attack like that. But if there are any calmer heads in the Islamic movement (and that seems to be a big "if"), they'd better not try it.

Such an attack would be considered a use of a "weapon of mass destruction". American policy has been to respond with the level of attack waged. There is, of course, only one WMD in the American arsenal: a nuke. If the Islamic Jihad mutts managed to cause 20,000 deaths in a single attack, even the most left-wing liberal would say, "Nuke 'em." A MILLION deaths? Ralph Nader would cackle as the button was pushed.

Another major terrorists attack on the US would result in the total elimination of Islam from the face of the Earth.

And you know what?

No one would give a damn.