>>Other than one reporter on the BBC who mentioned the US extemists in passing, I have heard of no other theories other than "I bet it was Bin Laden / muslim fundamentalists / rogue eastern state / Arab nation / (insert highest-profile or latest bogeyman here)". It might well turn out to be Bin Laden, but let's point the finger of blame at the guilty party when we have the evidence, not brandish our fists in the general direction of Mecca / Afghanistan.
>
>I agree there should be no rush to judgement without facts, but it looks like those facts are beginning to add up to point to the incidents being carried out by cells of Arab terrorists, some with clear connections to bin Laden. To suggest at this point that it might be "US extremists" is to ignore the mounds of evidence already compiled that says otherwise -- perhaps you have not yet seen those news reports.

David,

At the time I had not seen these news reports, but my point is more that the pronouncements of guilt were made *prior* to any evidence for or against and no other possible scenarios even considered. I thought the other cases unlikely also, but that wasn't really the thrust of my argument - I was using them as possible examples that could equally have been suggested without the "Muslims-are-guilty, just-add-water!" all-encompassing approach of the media. Buy one, get one free when people threw 'Arabs' into the mix as well. Nobody talks about "Christian-IRA" or says "European Terrorists bomb London" when dealing with Northern Ireland, because using sweeping terms like that would be silly..........wouldn't it?

Regards, etc.