Ciao!

It appears logically to me, that Germany and Canada are on the list, after all they are having troops in Afghanistan now, where the fight against Al-Quaida started.

I do not think the war was opposed by the opponents on the grounds of being safer from Al-Quaida.

Japan's not on the list?

I read a few articles not long ago (JP newspapers) indicating that there were "security risks" in the transportation system, that there was intelligence evidencing danger of terrorist threat.

Perhaps the intel indicated threat from domestic terrorists (viz. Aum Shinrikyo).

Melli, you're absolutely right. But. I meant that many of the anti-war left (US-Europe) have argued that Spain's 3/11 attack was a retaliation for Iraq. Some, almost relishing the "I-told-you-so" element. I think this points out that al-Qaeda doesn't care about any of that. It's waging a war against the West, and it's values. Sweden & Austria are on the list. Last I heard, they've no troops in Afghanistan.

Also, while few people made the argument that attacking Iraq would make us safer from al-Qaeda, several people made the argument that attacking Iraq would make us less safe. The implication was that joining the coalition increased the level of risk.

Oh I would certainly agree with the attack in Spain being connected to Spains involvement in Iraq. Yet, I do not think the reverse believe would work (not being involved in Iraq spares us from the thread). You are right, in terms of the Iraq war it does not matter what side you were/ are on.

I actually even think, that if the country is not on the list, it is off the hook by Al-Quaida. That is the nature of terrorism ... it happening in places we do not expect at times we do not expect.

The threat for a terrorist attack on any country that allied itself with US for the war, was not only clear, but keenly felt.

I, for one, wished that the war didn't have to happen on the fervent hope that there would not be terrorism attacks...

For now, my conclusion is, that terrorists hate and seek to destroy those countries that show signs of power and wealth and stability.

Another reason why Germany and France are on the list could be the recent discussion about whether female muslim teachers should be allowed to wear their bandana in class. (Separation of church and state issue)

Some regard it as a symbol of their faith others see it merely as a political symbol. Some even as a symbol for the suppression of women by muslim men.

I heared on the radio, recently that the French received threats regarding this question. Either they would take back legislation on the subject or they would have to face the consequences

Hey Marco... good to see your comment.

Does that mean u're back blogging? Yes? = )

I see your point, Steph. I guess I forgot that the second implication was that not joining the coalition would make someone safer. The idea that "appeasement" would work as a foreign policy. I think the 1930s proved that policy wrong ... I hope it doesn't take another catastrophe to prove the "old Europeans" wrong again.