The point I was trying to make was that many Americans seem to think that every one else is either soft on terrorism or fellow-travellers.
Well some other nations have extensive experience combating terrorism over many years.
'Don't know jack squat about the IRA', that says it all. So we have to subvert our laws to suit the US, (such as the farcical 'case' against Lofti Raissi, the so-called hijackers training pilot that wasn't), but getting terrorists with murder convictions extradited from the US was difficult, often unsuccessful.
Wasn't Tim McVeigh linked to at least one US Nazi organisation?
Before critising EU nations, look at the idiot Ashcroft is making of himself, and the US government.
The 'dirty bomber', then there was no plot, no material, not much of anything really. Of course if he has been through Bin-Laden's camps he should be at least very closely watched.
But why the big fanfare about him? With so much about him still unknown?
Then there is the history of the US and Islamic extremists, Lebanon 1983-the US took losses and pulled out, 1985-87-gave arms to Iran to get some hostages released, Somalia 1993-took losses and pulled out, 1998-after the African Embassy bombs just chucked a few cruise missiles here and there.
So who is it who has been soft on terrorism again?
Now put yourself in Bin-Laden's shoes, what does that tell you?
Maybe that the US maybe lacked the will to combat terrorist threats? Or that the very least had very poor intelligence assets ranged against Al-Queda.
Oversimplified of course, but zealots like Bin-Laden often see things simply.