Everybody leads with—indeed most banner—the bombings in London, which killed 38 and seriously wounded perhaps 50. About another 600 people were treated for minor injuries such as cuts, bruises, and smoke inhalation. (With the Los Angeles Timesand New York Times leading the way,the papers clump all the casualties together, leaving readers open to the wrong impression.)

The explosions of the four bombs were spread out over about 50 minutes, with the last one hitting a double-decker bus at 9:47 a.m. Authorities first attributed reports of trouble on the Underground to a power surge. That changed within minutes as the casualties mounted. One of the bombs was strong enough to blow a hole through a wall, damaging subways on the other side. Camera and video phones caught the first images of the aftermath.

"The terrorists are intent on destroying human lives," said Prime Minister Tony Blair. "We shall prevail, they shall not." Blair flew to London yesterday but planned to return to Scotland to continue with the G-8 business.

A never-heard-of-before jihadi group claimed responsibility for the attacks. The Web posting also warned Denmark and Italy that they're next unless they get out of Iraq. The claim is obviously uncorroborated, but as Britain's foreign secretary said, the timed strikes have the "hallmarks of an al-Qaida-related attack." As one former Spanish security official told the Washington Post, the similarities to last year's Madrid bombings "are striking." They were both tightly choreographed, hit public transportation, and were timed around a big political event (in the case of Spain, national elections).

The NYT highlights—and other LAT mentions—what might be the first tidbit from the investigation: Police purportedly said the bombs were triggered by timers not suicide attackers and not by cellphones (as the ones in Madrid were). "I do have information that timing devices appear to have been used," one U.S. intel official told the LAT. Neither paper gives a sense of the potential import of the timer angle. The London Underground, which the NYT says is the world's busiest subway system, is also chock-full of surveillance cameras, which investigators are obviously now poring over. 

The Wall Street Journal mentions that police are poking around for info about Mohamed Guerbouzi, a Moroccan militant thought to be connected to the Madrid and Casablanca bombings. The Journal then says this, "He has been living in Britain for about a decade, the police official said." The WSJ doesn't linger on that point, but a report last year by a well-regarded counterterrorism think tank said Britain's asylum laws are notoriously lax and have provided refuge to many jihadi types. A LAT piece about Muslim immigrants in London and a potential backlash also raises the issue.

British officials had long been concerned about the possibility of a strike, hence emergency workers' well-oiled response. But there had been no warning of the attacks. Indeed, as the NYT emphasizes, early last month Britain's domestic intel service lowered its terror threat index.

Everybody notes Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff went to orange for mass transit networks. He said the U.S. has "no specific, credible information suggesting an imminent attack" but is simply "concerned about the possibility of a copycat attack." Spain, France, and Mexico, among others, also raised their alert levels. Slate's Fred Kaplan said that what the feds really should do is stop being so darn stingy  when it comes to funding security for trains and subways. (Here's a rundown of Slate's coverage of the attacks.)

As a Page One Post piece emphasizes, to wonder whether "al-Qaida" is responsible is, basically, to misunderstand the threat. "I do not really believe there is such a thing as al-Qaida, the organization; there is al-Qaida, the mindset," one analyst told the Post. One likely upshot, as a former CIA officer put it a prescient PowerPoint presentation a few months ago: "No more 9/11, but lots of 3/11, especially in Europe."

The LAT says the debate among analysts isn't whether or not al-Qaida is responsible, it's whether the attackers were home-schooled or graduates of Zarqawi's courses in Iraq.