and i wasted one of my precious three posts (for today) on defending you! ;-) kidding aside, the point of my rseponse was a simple one (and stated within): it is incorrect to use or imply "sole cause", to characterize all "iraqi connection" arguments, and then dismiss them on that ground. we may differ on the level of the significance of the war (as a motive for the bombing), but i would be happy to get the other side to agree that it was significant, or at least offer some explanation more credible than the alternatives offered thus far. further, i would like us (leftists) to place structural issues (when relevant) and historical analysis over psychological explanations of individuals. i have, perhaps mistakenly, assumed that such a method is an important and differentiating characteristic of the left (finding broad data and the root cause of poverty rather than particular stories of the right about 'cadillac welfare queens' or bell curve theories about the capabilities of minorities).
now, if you are saying that the status of immigrants in western societies (or any society, really) was not a factor in the london bombing, then i disagree with that (too!).
--ravi