Link between London Bombings & War Crimes
 

Interesting read from a UK newspaper:

Of course those who backed the Iraq war refute any link with the London bombs - they are in the deepest denial

...We know what took place. A group of people, with no regard for law, order or our way of life, came to our city and trashed it. With scant regard for human life or political consequences, employing violence as their sole instrument of persuasion, they slaughtered innocent people indiscriminately. They left us feeling unified in our pain and resolute in our convictions, effectively creating a community where one previously did not exist. With the killers probably still at large there is no civil liberty so vital that some would not surrender it in pursuit of them and no punishment too harsh that some might not sanction if we found them.

The trouble is there is nothing in the last paragraph that could not just as easily be said from Falluja as it could from London. The two should not be equated - with over 1,000 people killed or injured, half its housing wrecked and almost every school and mosque damaged or flattened, what Falluja went through at the hands of the US military, with British support, was more deadly. But they can and should be compared. We do not have a monopoly on pain, suffering, rage or resilience. Our blood is no redder, our backbones are no stiffer, nor our tear ducts more productive than the people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those whose imagination could not stretch to empathise with the misery we have caused in the Gulf now have something closer to home to identify with. "Collateral damage" always has a human face: its relatives grieve; its communities have memory and demand action.

These basic humanistic precepts are the principle casualties of fundamentalism, whether it is wedded to Muhammad or the market. They were clearly absent from the minds of those who bombed London last week. They are no less absent from the minds of those who have pursued the war on terror for the past four years.

Tony Blair is not responsible for the more than 50 dead and 700 injured on Thursday. In all likelihood, "jihadists" are. But he is partly responsible for the 100,000 people who have been killed in Iraq. And even at this early stage there is a far clearer logic linking these two events than there ever was tying Saddam Hussein to either 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction.

It is no mystery why those who have backed the war in Iraq would refute this connection. With each and every setback, from the lack of UN endorsement right through to the continuing strength of the insurgency, they go ever deeper into denial. Their sophistry has now mutated into a form of political autism - their ability to engage with the world around them has been severely impaired by their adherence to a flawed and fatal project. To say that terrorists would have targeted us even if we hadn't gone into Iraq is a bit like a smoker justifying their habit by saying, "I could get run over crossing the street tomorrow." True, but the certain health risks of cigarettes are more akin to playing chicken on a four-lane highway. They have the effect of bringing that fatal, fateful day much closer than it might otherwise be.

Similarly, invading Iraq clearly made us a target. Did Downing Street really think it could declare a war on terror and that terror would not fight back? That, in itself, is not a reason to withdraw troops if having them there is the right thing to do. But since it isn't and never was, it provides a compelling reason to change course before more people are killed here or there. So the prime minister got it partly right on Saturday when he said: "I think this type of terrorism has very deep roots. As well as dealing with the consequences of this - trying to protect ourselves as much as any civil society can - you have to try to pull it up by its roots."

What he would not acknowledge is that his alliance with President George Bush has been sowing the seeds and fertilising the soil in the Gulf, for yet more to grow. The invasion and occupation of Iraq - illegal, immoral and inept - provided the Arab world with one more legitimate grievance. Bush laid down the gauntlet: you're either with us or with the terrorists. A small minority of young Muslims looked at the values displayed in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and Camp Bread Basket - and made their choice. The war helped transform Iraq from a vicious, secular dictatorship with no links to international terrorism into a magnet and training ground for those determined to commit terrorist atrocities. Meanwhile, it diverted our attention and resources from the very people we should have been fighting - al-Qaida.

Leftwing axe-grinding? As early as February 2003 the joint intelligence committee reported that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent "by far the greatest terrorist threat to western interests, and that that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq". At the World Economic Forum last year, Gareth Evans, the former Australian foreign minister and head of the International Crisis Group thinktank, said: "The net result of the war on terror is more war and more terror. Look at Iraq: the least plausible reason for going to war - terrorism - has been its most harrowing consequence."

None of that justifies what the bombers did. But it does help explain how we got where we are and what we need to do to move to a safer place. If Blair didn't know the invasion would make us more vulnerable, he is negligent; if he did, then he should take responsibility for his part in this. That does not mean we deserved what was coming. It means we deserve a lot better.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlo...525755,00.html

EviLSuperstaR, do us all a favor and go back to sucking cocks for 20 pesos.
ok?

WHAT?!?!? 20pesos only??
And here I was paying fuckin 25
wait till I get back down there and talk to that whore again :disgust

Not sure about that

It's no use pussydude, as long as you are on the next corner sucking cocks and having your ass boned for 12 pesos... :)
I suggest you report yourself as an insurgent and move to Abu Grahib?

Wow, it's not like that article has a narrow political viewpoint/agenda or anything :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

That article will likely be dismissed by many Americans as left-wing moralizing, even by those who remember that the British public was overwhelmingly against the invasion of Iraq. But if you pay a little more attention, it's actually a pragmatic recognition of several issues that Americans do not want to deal with.

The first is that terrorism, or more correctly violence, does work. Indeed, for minorities or other effectively powerless people, it is almost always the only practical option. No-one in Britain is under any illusion that their parliament suddenly started to care about the catholics of Northern Ireland: they know that bombs made their politicians sit down with the IRA. Here in the US, you could try to argue that Martin Luther King made peaceful progress, but how much progress would have been made without the revulsion to the violence turned against colored Americans because of the activities of his and other civil rights movements.

The other piece of political rhetoric most people in Britain do not buy into, is the promise that terrorists will be punished. Certainly some will die and some will be imprisoned, but those who stay the course will be pardoned and handed back normal lives. Some will even be feted. Brits know this from their experience with both the IRA and 50 years earlier, with Israel. Come to that, if Americans were better informed, they would recognize how easily their own government is willing to forgive or at least forget. Check out: http://www.mideastweb.org/lavon.htm (btw earlier this year it went almost unnoticed in the media here that the Israeli president honored the 3 surviving members of the Lavon Affair) and http://www.ussliberty.org/

Politicians initially address their electorates with stirring words, knowing at this point that most people want reassurance and the promise of revenge. But there isn't an experienced politician on the planet who doesn't know full well that ultimately both national pride and moral arguments are completely irrelevant. if violent opponents show sufficient resolve, striking often enough and with sufficient impact to energize a normally complacent public, they will eventually win. Summed up, the Guardian article does no more than imply an awareness of that reality and state more bluntly the other obvious truth: namely that in the real world, actions do cause reactions.

Its an editorial.

What it fails to recognise is that with the system as it exists in the middle east today, ANY action OR inaction on the part of the west will have terrorist repercussions. Look at the vast number of hijackings and bombings in Europe in the 70s.

Right now, the dictators of the middle east are keeping their people in an almost medieval style of ignorance and poverty, and using Isreal and the west as a vent for the peoples frustrations. Of course the Iraq war is being used as a good excuse now, but if not, then another would be found. Look at attacks on US embassies in Africa and the USS cole under Clinton

If a successful democracy is established in Iraq, and there is open trade, then the people will no longer be nearly as open to the idea of terrorism, and they will be more vested in keeping things stable and peaceful, both inside their countries, and with trading partners. The establishment of even a fledgling democracy in Iraq is already showing signs of spreading and inspiring others in the middle east today.

In the short-term you are almost certainly correct. We are faced with hundreds of factions with many different motivations and objectives. But it is wrong to in effect imply that the actions of the 70's were spontaneous events.

There are two basic threads in the Middle East. One began in the 1920's as the British surrendered their influence to the US and the US embarked on a foreign policy intended to keep the region unstable, so as to protect its supplies of cheap oil (and allow US companies to maximize their profits from this trade). The other thread is western (and particularly US) support for Israel.

The bombings you wrote about were a direct result of that latter policy and in so far as Israel is now negotiating with the PLO (albeit not in name), it is another illustration of the point that terrorism works. In terms of the wider arab problem, the west faces a situation similar to Israel which is that while Israel is now willing to talk to old enemies, taking too long to do so means now facing new enemies (Hammas). Israel's problems may superficially look like a single chain of events, but in reality they are close to the end of a cycle which began post-1967 and early in a second cycle that only started in the mid-1980's. The rhetoric reserved for Hammas today is very similar to the way that they were talking about the PLO 10+ years ago.

The west certainly faces many more difficulties. 80 years of US foreign policy towards the region as a whole and its support of Israel, has made enemies of almost every country there. In addition, we have supported regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait which do not have popular support, virtually guaranteeing that when those regimes are overthrown (I would guess in the next 5-10 years) our last allies will be gone. As well as facing groups with genuine grievances which could be resolved if we had the willingness to do so, we are also up against people - some so-called religious leaders in particular - who are using anti-American feeling as cynically as our own leaders manipulate us, solely to advance themselves.

You are ignoring the fact that for hundreds of years the middle east was the trading crossroads of the civilized world and that right into the 1960's several mid-east countries still had close ties with Britain and France. All without democracy. Mid-east terrorism has grown solely out of the rise of pan-arab nationalism and that is what needs to be addressed if we really want a solution. The US public is being sold democracy as a solution because it's an appealing magic-bullet concept and that is all. If the US government cares at all about democracy in Iraq, it is only because the majority there are not strong enough to take power without US support and we can demand a high price for that support.

Although they were trading with the world, and were under control (more or less), of Britain and France, those governments had a much greater ability to control the regions peoples through controling access to communication and knowledge of the outside world, by sheer fact of lack of technology in the region, if nothing else. I would submit that the rise of nationalism has been fostered as a tool of those dictatorships in order to give their populations an outlet for the frustration caused by the ever increasing disparity between their poverty stricken lifestyles (since 99% of the wealth is controled by only a few thousand people), and that of the west.

Although I don't see democracy as a "magic bullet", it will be an utterly neccesary step in the process of bringing the region into the international community. History has shown that, although it is certainly not perfect, there is more chance for peace between countries that are representative of their people and are doing business together, than with any other situation. :2 cents:

You mean like most of the articles in the US media on the eve of the Iraq invasion that without any criticism linked Sadam to non-existing Iraqi WMD and non-existing ties to Al-Qaeda therewith neglecting completely international intelligence, UN weapon inspectors and the mere facts that were contradicting them?

No this article has a lot more depth and credibility than that.

Yea I didnt belive this when I first saw it

You are deluding yourself.

Has there even been a democracy in an Islamic country? Why do you think that the US can impose one on Iraq? And why now?

The US is imposing, and superimposing, their values on the Islamic world. Time for a reality check.

The current puppets of the US Administration who are securring office in Iraq, are preparing to be the next dictators at the earliest opportunity.

The US has killed 200,000 innocent people in Iraq, and labelled those deaths as 'collateral damage'. It will be incredibly easy for a leader in Iraq to rally the people with an anti-US platform.

In Iraq, under Hussain, there was no terrorism. Al-Quiada was as much his enemy, as the US's.

Now Al-Quiada is entrenched in Iraq. And they have another country to recruit in.

Very will done dubya!

:2 cents:

I have no probelm with the war on terror, but I DO have a problem with what is going on in Iraq. that is a war for oil. Bush knows that of he controls the oil, ht controls most of the world.

The current opinion of the police and intelligence services are that the bombing were carried out by British Citizens - British born Muslims - probably of pakistani or african roots.

If its true there is absolutely no connection to Iraq or Oil........... only connection is muslim bit.

Oil price, war crimes, terrorism, hey, what else is new?

Al-Zarkawi is Jordanian, the Madrid Bombers that struck in retaliation of Spains troops in Iraq were Morrocans, Bin Laden is a Saudi,....

Al-Qaeda is not a country, it is indeed that "muslim bit" detail that ties them together.

Dude, i come here to forget about the outside world...

I still believe...
 

I still believe in Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and unrigged NFL.

do you?

:anon

Saudi Arabia pumps outs thousands of more terrorists than Iraq ever dreamed of yet Bush hugs and kisses their leaders.

this thread wouldn't be complete without a pic of Skufty's balls

http://www.hjorleifson.com/skufty/balls.jpg

Saudi Arabia also did not violate UN resolutions, nor did they START two wars in less than ten years, also the Saudi royal family may be pompous rish assholes but they certainly are no cut throat murdering military men like Saddam Hussein was. Next time before you fart with your mouth, try the other hole first. :thumbsup

Thanks for the Limpball history lesson fuckbrain. I guess since the US has also started two wars in less than 5 years and violated the Geneva Convention China has a right to overthrow our govt.

No surprise people such as yourself with such a severe mental handicap is obsessed with farting. Farting, nascar, grits, and jacking off to Andy Coulter is a daily routine for you.

whos andy coulter?

Skufty can suck my salty balls.

Like i said....Its now officially confirmed........... all British born,

Well, let's see..... Just off the top of my head, there is Turkey, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Senegal, Mali and Indonesia.... Those are Islamic countries that are democracies....


Next argument?

The USA did not START two wars, Al-Qaeda harbored by the Taliban regime who controlled Afghanistan attacked us on September 11 2001 which started the war on terror, as far as the Iraq war it is an extension to the 1991 campaign because the resolutions Iraq violated(and finding WMD or not was not the issue the issue was that Saddam was not complying with resolutions that said he could not pursue WMD programs and there is documented proof he was with long range missles).

Of course all that may be a little too much for your limited intelligence to read let alone comprehend so Ill just conclude with a nice :321GFY

Like I said, Al-Qaeda is not a country. Al-Zarkawi is Jordanian, Bin Laden is Saudi, Mohammed Atta was Saudi, etc.

Hey, there ain't a damn thing wrong with grits :glugglug

*yawn* another dumb, shortsighted conversation about cause and effect relationships that assume radical islam and extremists only exist because of the US or "the west".

why is it that people just can't understand that people who exist in extreme poverty are easily swayed by insane, pyschopathic and sociopathic people who understand a simple and fundamental element of leadership and power - create an enemy (the west, christians, jews etc) and position yourself as the one fighting for the people, saving the people. every dictator has done the same. is hitler different than osama bin laden? i see no difference. I see two people dedicated to war, fighting and ultimate victory at any cost, with any justification.

if islamic fundamentalists did not have "the west" as a rallying cry. it would be "christians", it would be "jews", it would be "big business"... in fact, as always in politics and power, it would be anything that people want to hear. the west is always going to be a target of fundamentalists as long as they continue to exist in poverty stricken shitholes, living in caves and farming food from a pile of rocks... i mean afterall, since when do people accept responsibility and blame themselves for their problems?

you think the war in Iraq is the "cause" of the london attacks? - really? there have been terrorist attacks for centuries. there is always some "cause"... there is always some justification. there is always some rationalization. what caused 9/11? what caused the first WTC attack? The USS Cole? etc etc etc. does it matter? in the end, you are left to choose one of two choices - to reject completely this behavior and wipe it out or to appease such people by allowing them to manipulate you and your policy for fear of conflict, only inviting more of the same behavior from them.