For a full report on the day's events in London, look no further than Europhobia, where Nosemonkey has excelled.
From across the pond, I've undertaken a quick tour of some European papers (any mistakes in these very rapid translations are mine). Izvestia in Moscow has no doubt as to the guilt of Al Qaeda:
London has paid the price in the same way as Madrid did. And although no-one else [apart from Al Qaeda in Europe] has claimed responsibility for these explosions, it is clear that this is Britain's payment for its excessively active role in the 'anti-terror coalition' headed by the US. And, of course, for its participation in the Iraq campaign.
Bitter experience teaches many lessons. This time no-one talked of IRA terrorists - everyone understood that 'our own home-grown terrorists' do not deal so mercilessly with innocent civilians. Last year, after the Spanish explosions, ETA was blamed - Prime Minister Aznar accused 'home-grown terrorists'. The result was a million-strong demonstration and the defeat of the governing authorities in the elections that followed a few days later.
France's Le Monde says that Britain was a natural target:
The UK has many times been designated as a target by Al Qaeda and its associates. Messages to this effect has been broadcast on numerous occasions by the Al Jazira television network.
In an audio document broadcast in May 2004, Ayman Al-Zawahri, considered as Al Qaeda's ideologue, invited 'muslims' to 'be strong' and to attack British diplomatic missions. But other countries were also targeted in the message, including Australia, Norway and the United States.
The choice of London, if the attacks prove to be those of Islamic terror groups, may also come from the support given to Israel by the Blair government, and by the alliance of the UK with the US, notably in Iraq.
As a result of legislation that is more liberal than in other European countries, London has in effect become a sort of refuge for some islamists hounded from their home countries. Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and North Africans make up a considerable part of these exiles. Western security services believe that hidden amongst these political refugees are a number of 'activists'. The UK has faced criticism by several countries, some, such as Algeria, struggling with their own armed Islamic groups, and has progressively tightened up its laws, without, however, reaching complete alignment with those in force on the continent.
In Munich, the Suddeuschte Zeitung marvels at the reaction to the bombs:
The reaction of the British Prime Minister, the British body politic, the whole British public to this new terror attack in London is remarkable and positively exemplary.
The country has endured the attacks with astonishing calm and through this sends to the perpetrators the most important message of all: We will not allow ourselves to be intimidated.
Up in Gleneagles, the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant has sent its own blogger, Peter de Waard. He describes the 'panic' amongst the foreign journalists as news of the London bombings spread:
Bags are being packed without anyone really knowing where we should go to. To London? But can any trains get to London? And even if we could get to a station in London, what then?
Yesterday, the Olympic Games were centre-stage, today the explosions. Whatever happens at the G8, it will be overshadowed by the events a six-hour journey from Gleneagles. That is tragic both for Africa and for the environment.
Finally, Le Figaro in Paris reports the very sad news that the celebrations for winning the 2012 Olympics have been cancelled. It quotes Keith Mills, head of international relations at London-2012 as saying:
"This shows that no city in the world is safe from terrorism today. Even London, which has some of the most sophisticated security systems anywhere, cannot avoid this sort of attack"
Sad news, indeed. Wouldn't holding a huge party to celebrate the Olympics be one of the best ways to show two very British fingers up to the terrorists?