Multilingual, multiracial London braced the deadly terrorist attacks of 7/7 bravely and their reactions were largely shaped by the fact that the bombings were widely predicted by police and other government agencies. The Mayor of London, as well as the media, had apprehended that like Spain, Britain would be targeted by Al Qaida and other extremist groups for its involvement in the Iraq War. As a major colonial power, Britain had faced terrorist attacks in the past, and for the last three decades from the IRA. Naturally, they faced it more calmly than their cousins on the other side of the Atlantic. Of course, comparison may not be fair as America, prior to 9/11, had not faced any terrorist attack of that size and dimension, nor had it faced any external aggression on its soil. All the wars it had fought had been thousands of miles away from home.

The second attack exactly a fortnight latter, however, rattled the otherwise cool and composed Londoners. Almost like an action replay four assailants with explosives struck at three underground trains and a double-decker bus in London. Fortunately, the bombs did not explode this time and no one was hurt. The police seized the unexploded bombs and other evidences. All four suspects have now been arrested, three in London and one in Rome. The suspects are East African origin Muslims, three from Somalia and one from Eritrea. They too are British citizens or residents who have been living in London for years. The fifth suspect who had reportedly left an unexploded bomb has also been detained and identified as the brother of one of the other suspects. During the massive manhunt the police raided several houses in London and Birmingham and have so far arrested nearly twenty people. Now that all the suspects are in police custody, it is expected that police would be able to identify the mastermind behind the plot. Are these two bombings linked? The suspect in Rome reportedly stated that they are not. It is crucial to know all the facts in order to thwart further attacks.

The Muslim community in UK would like to know what prompted these people to launch the barbaric attack against their fellow citizens. The victims of these attacks also include other Muslims; a Bangladesh-origin British girl, Shahara Islam lost her life in the 7/7 attack. One can understand, even if one does not support, suicide bombings by Muslim militants to liberate their countries from foreign occupation in the Middle East. But why should they strike in London? The Muslim leaders in UK have reiterated that instead of promoting the cause of Islam, these attacks have only given a bad name to this great religion that stands for peace. The attacks have not in any way promoted the cause of suppressed Muslims under foreign occupation; they have jeopardised the lives of millions of Muslims living in UK and the western world.

While unable to contain its militants the mainstream Muslims, who are moderate and peace-loving, have helplessly looked on as the Islam-phobia campaign was launched by certain vested circles in the Western world that, in effect, has created deeper polarisation and strengthened extremists on both sides. The British Muslims are currently passing their days in great anxiety. Their businesses are down, popular South Asian restaurants are nearly empty and professionals have suddenly become "suspects" in the eyes of their colleagues. In fact, the entire South Asian community, and now the East Africans, are living under constant threat of attacks from hooligans and closer scrutiny by law enforcement authorities.

According to latest Guardian/ CM poll survey, tens of thousands of Muslims have suffered from increased Islam-phobia, with one in five saying they or a family member have faced abuse or hostility. The poll also indicated that in the past three weeks police have recorded more than 1,200 suspected Islam-phobic incidents across Britain ranging from verbal abuse to one murder. The actual figure is believed to be higher. Surprisingly, nearly two-thirds of Muslims told the pollsters that they are concerned about their future in Britain after these attacks, with 63 per cent saying they had considered whether they wanted to remain in the UK.

More importantly, the same poll finds a near total rejection of violence by Muslims with nine in 10 believing it has no place in a political struggle, and they expressed their resolve to help police tackle the Muslim extremists. Fifty-five percent of the Muslims [as compared to 68% of all Britons] acknowledge that their clerics' and leaders' inability to root out extremists is a factor behind the attacks. Furthermore, nearly two-thirds Muslims identify racist and Islam-phobic behaviour as a cause compared to 57% of all Britons.

Ironically, it was the West which had promoted contemporary Islamic militancy about two decades ago, to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviet intervention. It was at that time that Osama Bin laden and other Mujahideen fighters had received equipment and training from the West through Pakistan, and they had succeeded in forcing Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan. However, once the Soviets withdrew, the West lost interest in Afghanistan and its mujahideen partners. Due to internal fights among different war lords, Afghanistan drifted towards anarchy, and a dangerous power vacuum was created which encouraged extremist organisation like Al-Qaida to gain foothold in Afghanistan. When a Taliban regime took over in Kabul and committed excesses in the name of Islam, overwhelming majority of Muslim countries refused to recognize them. Initially, only three out 55 Muslim countries had extended recognition, but subsequently two withdrew their recognition.

Many Muslims believe that after the demise of the Soviet Union, the Islamic world was made the new ideological target for the West. The genocide of Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina, persecutions in Chechnya and Kosovo and, above all, the developments in Palestine and in occupied territories created deeper division between the West and Muslim world. After 9/11 almost all the Muslim countries had extended full cooperation to the West in its war against terror. But this consensus evaporated when, instead of fighting the international terrorists, Washington, supported by London and a few others launched the military campaign against Iraq. The Islamic world had no love for Saddam, who through his ill-conceived military campaigns against its two Muslim neighbours, Iran and Kuwait, had not only depleted precious common resources but had also significantly reduced political clout of the Islamic world; but they opposed the war as it was launched without any sanction from the United Nations.

The ongoing devastating war in Iraq, the death of thousands of innocent civilians, excesses in Abu Ghraib prisons, desecration of Holy Koran, and spiraling violence in Palestine and occupied territories, have created new fury in the Islamic world. Al-Qaida and other militant groups took advantage of the rage to recruit terrorists in different parts of the world for undertaking barbaric attacks against civilians. A few Muslim countries have also faced these attacks. Iraq has emerged as a major terror center. While Washington is too preoccupied with Iraq, militants in Afghanistan have largely regrouped themselves and intensified their attacks. After nearly four years of the war on terror, Osama bin Laden still remains at large and the acts of terrorism continue unabated.

Is there any connection between the terrorist attacks in London and the war in Iraq? Well, Prime Minister Tony Blair has strongly defended his government's action and has emphatically denied any such connection. He has also mentioned that such terrorist attacks were launched even before the Iraq war. On the other hand, according to another poll conducted by the Communications Research for Sky News, sixty percent British respondents 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' that there is a connection and they asserted that by joining the Washington-led invasion of Iraq the Blair Government had placed Londoners in jeopardy vis-à-vis the Muslim extremists.

In a recent report, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House, also shared this perception and stated that UK was at particular risk, by being the closest ally of the United States, by deploying armed forces in the military campaigns in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and by taking a leading role in international intelligence, police and judicial co-operation against al-Qaida, and by trying to suppress al-Qaida's finances. They also warned that the Iraq war had actually helped al-Qaida's recruitment and fundraising, and fueled its propaganda, had turned Afghanistan into an ideal targeting and training ground for al-Qaida terrorists, and had redirected resources that could have been used to assist the Karzai government to capture Bin Laden. The British government's Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre recently concluded that the invasion of Iraq had created "a motivation and a focus for a range of terrorist-related activity in the UK".

Athe London bombings, British law enforcement authorities have been given sweeping powers to prevent recurrence of such incidents, including the authority to shoot-to-kill. Unfortunately, the very first application of the policy resulted in the killing of an innocent Brazilian electrician, of Asian appearance. While the British government defended its policy and apologised for the unfortunate death, the incident created panic among Asians who believed that they are being specifically targeted.

The vast majority of British believe that this is not the time to aggravate the apparent division in the society, but instead to undertake confidence-building measures and genuine dialogue so that the entire population and law enforcement authorities could jointly fight against the common enemy, terrorism. For centuries London has been the centre for promotion of freedom and liberty, but they believe all these traditions are being weakened by mindless violence by extremists and the excesses by law enforcement authorities.

As history has shown, the most effective way to fight terrorism is to address and resolve the "root cause", thus divesting the terrorists of popular support. The political settlement of Northern Ireland, and the IRA's recent decision to forsake arms to resolve political issue, clearly demonstrate this point. Britain has a much better knowledge of Iraq, Palestine and Middle-East than any other power and has greater acceptability in the international arena. It is high time that they take initiative to restore justice and peace in the region.

The fact that the London bombings were done not by foreign terrorists but by Britain's own youth also poses new challenges. It is obvious that these youth, born or brought up in Britain, did not resort to terrorist attacks to register their "opposition to western way of life or opposition to freedom and democracy", as espoused by western leaders as the cause of terrorist attacks. Were these suspects simply trying to register their protests against their government's policies? Some sociologists have stressed that this younger generation of Muslim Brits, unlike the preceding generation, are not afraid to take these drastic steps to redress injustices towards Muslims.

Experts have time and again pointed out that alienation of a particular community and racial profiling will create incalculable long-term damages. Furthermore, demonising Islam for the crimes committed by a few will only deepen polarisation and create more disillusioned youth, who would in turn resort to terrorism. Multi-lingual and multi-racial Britain, therefore, has to initiate a genuine dialogue to ensure its security without surrendering its unique position as the global centre for freedom and justice. It will be a delicate tightrope walk indeed.

How will the London bombings impact the nearly six million Muslims living in the United States? For one thing, the Muslims in America, though larger in number than in Britain, are smaller in proportion to the population of the country and are spread over a larger land than Britain. Furthermore, they are not as organised and politically conscious as their counterparts in Britain. Naturally, they have much smaller political clout and are more vulnerable. The bombings came at an opportune moment for the Bush Administration as the controversial Patriot Act was coming up for renewal at the US Senate. The Senate, in a unanimous vote on Friday, has passed the bill making 14 out of 16 anti-terrorism provisions permanent. As a compromise the lawmakers agreed to include additional civil rights safeguards and pre-empt any expansion of the Administration's counter-terrorism powers. It may be recalled that the Patriot Act, passed in the aftermath of 9/11, gave the Administration immense search and surveillance powers to hunt down terrorists. The bill, however, attracted criticism as it had encroached on civil liberties.

The writer, a former Foreign Secretary, sent this article from US