This story is one of the most bizarre and tragic immediate consequences of the London bombs. I think it's apropriate to add that the British police did not just shoot this innocent Brazilian - they shot five bullets in his head while he was lying on the floor. And he was simply on his way to work, on a morning like any other. Another strange fact is that, for a couple of days after this public execution, the victim (who was then still a "suspect") was unanimously referred to as "an Asian man". Judging on the picture, he could perhaps pass for an Arab, like lots of South Americans and at least a billion other people. I suppose the guy could have theoretically come from somewhere east of Cyprus. Hence the Asian label. Quite legitimate, don't you think?

From a wider perspective, this "regrettable incident" has to be seen as a direct consequence of the War on Freedom that George Dubya officially launched four years ago (though I seem to remember he had some different, absurdly misleading name for it). If the establishments of Dubya and Bliar think nothing of killing thousands of innocent civilians abroad, a few more at home cannot possibly mean much.

On a related note, I would very much like to see an end to the intellectually dishonest, nationalistic and populist rubbish that these leaders of the English-speaking world deliver when they talk about the causes of terrorism. "They hate us". "They hate freedom". "This was an attack on the values we hold dear". Absolute bollocks. Statements like that only aggravate violence and result in more corpses - like the hundred or so who just died in Egypt - because the terrorists feel a bigger and bigger urge to drive home their real message. Sadly, the zeitgeist favours those who avoid thinking. Bush's fellow murderer and apparent kindred spirit (partner in fundamentalism) Bin Laden put it well last year when he asked Bush to explain why, if the bombers hate freedom, they do not attack Sweden. Maybe he has read some European history and found that Sweden hasn't attacked anyone for quite a while.

If a bomb were a speech act, none of the ones we've seen in recent years would have said "We hate what you stand for". None of them have been statements at all; instead, they have all been requests. Imperative instead of declarative. They have said, "Change your policies". And the requests have been delivered using the only method available to these people. It would be very healthy to dump the pompous populism for a while and acknowledge these messages as what they are. No one should be labelled a supporter of terrorism for voicing the self-evident fact that the continuing attacks, however cruel, have reasons. 11:42