London bombings - what they said Part 2 (Jul-Aug 2005)   12 Aug 05 Tariq Ali in CounterPunch Terror and Democracy In the face of terror attacks Anglo-Saxon politicians mouth the same rhetoric. One sentence in particular--shrouded in layers of untruth--is constantly repeated: 'We shall not permit these attacks to change our way of life.' It is a multi-purpose mantra. The first aim is to convince the public that the terrorists are crazed Muslims who are bombing modernity/democracy/freedom/ 'our values', etc. This is the first lie. The terror attacks, however misguided and criminal, are a result of the Western military presence in the Arab world. If all the foreign troops and bases were withdrawn, the attacks would cease. This is essentially a post-First Gulf war syndrome. Israel/Palestine is another issue, simmering for fifty years but not the main reason for the bombings in New York, Madrid and London. The attacks have changed 'our way of life'. What is being proposed in Britain is the indefinite suspension of habeas corpus. Worried by the recent judicial activism with senior Judges in Britain expressing a real concern at the growing attack on civil liberties, Tony Blair warned them in public that he would brook no dissent: "Should legal obstacles arise, we will legislate further, including, if necessary amending the Human Rights Act, in respect of the interpretation of the ECHR. In any event, we will consult on legislating specifically for a non-suspensive appeal process in respect of deportations. One other point on deportations. Once the new grounds take effect, there will be a list drawn up of specific extremist websites, bookshops, centres, networks and particular organisations of concern. Active engagement with any of these will be a trigger for the home secretary to consider the deportation of any foreign national. As has been stated already, there will be new anti-terrorism legislation in the autumn. This will include an offence of condoning or glorifying terrorism. The sort of remarks made in recent days should be covered by such laws. But this will also be applied to justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere, not just in the UK." The British Parliament is a parliament dominated by cons and neo-cons. Blair's Conservative opponent, Michael Howard has demanded even tougher measures. In reality he is Blair's echo-chamber. In the Daily Telegraph, Howard denounced the law lords' (Britain's equivalent of the Supreme Court) decision last year. The judges had stated that the indefinite detention without trial of foreign terror suspects under the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act contravened the Human Rights Act, and referred to the difficulties the latter act creates for deporting extremists to countries where they may face persecution or torture. Wrote Howard: "Parliament must be supreme. Aggressive judicial activism will not only undermine the public's confidence in the impartiality of our judiciary. It could also put our security at risk - and with it the freedoms the judges seek to defend. That would be a price we cannot be expected to pay." A Crisis of Representation Note a refusal to accept what really puts 'security at risk'. Britain is undergoing a crisis of representation. The corrupt first-past-the-post electoral system has now become a serious threat to democratic functioning in Britain. Blair was re-elected with only 35 per cent of the popular vote, and barely a fifth of the overall electorate-the lowest percentage secured by any governing party in recent European history. A majority of the population opposed the war in Iraq; a majority of the population favours withdrawing British troops; 66 percent believe that the attacks on London were the result of Blair's decision to send troops to Iraq. This is also the view of important sections of the Establishment, including MI5, the intelligence agency whose web-site makes the link of Iraq to the terror attacks. Many measures proposed were tried during the years of the Irish 'troubles'. Special courts sanctioned imprisonment without trial, etc. But judges were more reliable in those days. That is why Blair is proposing that judges who try Muslim suspects should themselves be security-vetted. In other words files will be opened to determine the reliability of judges. Cherie Blair While Blair was denouncing soft judges, his wife Cherie Booth, a practicing lawyer contradicted the Dear Leader in a public. In a lecture in Kuala Lumpur she said: "Sometimes democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its back. None the less, it has the upper hand. Preserving the rule of law and recognition of individual liberties constitutes an important component of its understanding of security. At the end of the day, this strengthens its spirit, and this strength allows it to overcome its difficulties. Our institutions are under threat; our commitments to our deepest values are under pressure; our acceptance of difference is at a low point. At this time our understanding of the importance of judges in a human-rights age should be at its clearest. And it is at this time that our support for the difficult task that judges have to perform must be at its highest." In the latest New Left Review, reviewing a new biography of Blair, the historian Richard Gott suggested that it was religion that explained Blair's isolation from his own people: "As an overtly religious prime minister, Blair has been at odds with the larger part of his country which, like most of Europe, has become increasingly secular in recent years. His religious fervour-he was, unusually, confirmed in the Anglican communion as an adult, when a student at Oxford-is a relatively unfamiliar phenomenon in contemporary Britain. Indeed Blair, who has apparently read through the Koran three times, sometimes seems more at home with the Muslim revival experienced by part of the British electorate than with the secular style of the Church of England. Blair does not like to be bracketed with right-wing religious fundamentalists in the United States, but like many of them he is a genuine 'friend of Israel', a country that he visited twice before becoming prime minister. His knowledge of and support for Israel has long been guided by Lord Levy, a millionaire in the music business who became Blair's tennis partner, the Labour Party's chief fundraiser and, for a while, the prime minister's eyes and ears in the Middle East." Whatever the case, it is now obvious that there will be no peace in Britain or Iraq as long as Blair remains Prime Minister. He is part of the problem, not the solution. 25 Jul 05 John Pilger (New Statesman) ”The cause of the current terrorism is neither religion nor hatred for "our way of life". It is political, requiring a political solution. It is injustice and double standards, which plant the deepest grievances. That, the culpability of our leaders, and the "cameras that point the other way"...  25 Jul 05 Columnist Andreas Whittam Smith in Independent “The Prime Minister is in denial about the impact of the Iraq war on terrorism… Denial is refusing to acknowledge certain aspects of reality because it is so painful and distressing… Blair is saying to himself: ‘If I admit error, I’m done for; the best way of staying in power is to bluff it out.’ Blair’s unquestioning acceptance of US policy with all its faults and his silence in the face of the brutality of US forces in Iraq breeds resentment in this country.”  26 Jul05 BBC News: Speaking to reporters on new terror laws, Blair said Iraq was no excuse for the London bombings. He said Iraq was being used to recruit terrorists but insisted that the roots of extremism were much deeper. Sept 11 was a wake-up call for the international community. ____________________________________ 19 July 2005 Tariq Ali in CounterPunch On 8 July I wrote that the London bombings were the result of Blair's participation in the Iraq war. Blair refused to admit any link and the media loyally echoed him. The entire media was united in refusing to accept there was any link. [The instinctive reaction of the corporate media especially in a crisis is to switch into a patriotic mode and back the government line. In the process the public are denied a credible explanation for the bombings.] But why did these attacks happen? That is the key question which the entire media and the entire political class in this country will not answer. The government and the Tory party know perfectly well why it happened. To accept the link means that the pro-war politicians and newspaper editors were also partially responsible. As I travelled in different parts of London and elsewhere in Britain, I was amazed by the number of people who told me, without hesitation, that we were paying the price for the war in Iraq. A few went further and argued that British politicians thought they could press buttons and make war in the Arab world and remain safe themselves. Now they had a reply. ------------------------------------------------ a) A YouGov survey in February 2003, revealed that 79% of Londoners felt that a British attack on Iraq "would make a terrorist attack on London more likely". Another YouGov poll (published on Sat, 23Jul05; reported in Indep 26Jul05) was on Muslim attitudes. To the question ‘How loyal do you personally feel towards Britain?’ - Less than half (48%) said ‘very loyal’; 33% said ‘fairly loyal’ and 16% said ‘not at all loyal’. b) On Jul 08, the Guardian had called the bombings the “latest unprovoked act of evil”. On July 19, a special opinion poll commissioned by The Guardian/ICM has made this view public. 66 percent of the British public believes there was a link with Iraq. The Guardian was too ashamed to report this on its own front page. [Solomon’s recent book as well as Medialens have said that dissenting views may be published but must be tucked inside.]  The message is clear. Despite the weight of official propaganda people refuse to believe Blair. The British political and media elite is as isolated from the public as its French and Dutch counterparts.   c) On July 18, a Foreign Office think-tank, Chatham House (formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs) published a special report which argued that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had resulted in an increase of terrorism and Blair had made the UK vulnerable. [The principal author was the right-wing academic, Paul Wilkinson, a voice of western power.] Blair and his court denounced the report. d) Yasmin A-B (18Jul05) “The UK moved the bomb investigations beyond our shores to Muslim countries. Western democracies argue they are entitled to violate human rights and intimidate people. At the same time, objections have been raised by former generals in the House of Lords don’t want us to try soldiers found guilty of unlawful killings and abuse of Iraqi civilians and prisoners. ”Meanwhile the US Senate Committee looking into the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay found evidence that inmates have been systematically abused and degraded. Female guards smear them with blood they pretend is menstrual blood; they led them around on dog leashes, performed mock homosexual acts, duct taped and chained them, deprived them of sleep and warned their families were next in line. ”Israelis have had Palestinians humiliated, threatened, beaten, shot. Russians have terrorised the people of Chechnya. ”Blair has called on Muslims to confront the demons in their midst and question their ideology that propagates terrorism. In return, is he prepared to his confront his own policies which terrorise so many people around the world” 26 Jul 05 Yasmin Alibhai- Brown in Independent ”People charged with keeping us safe within the law are themselves succumbing to hysteria, unlawful acts, scapegoating and double talk… A poor innocent Brazilian, Jean de Menezes, 27, was shot dead (with 5 bullets)… The targets are selected within set physical parameters (Arab and Asian)… Are perhaps some officers maddened by men who look Muslim? Have their prejudices surfaced since the bomb attacks? Years ago in Stoke Newington, some officers admitted that black men terrified them and the fear led them to over-react. Perhaps the same syndrome is appearing today with Asians. ”The delicate situation is being exploited by the pro-Israeli lobby… British politicians eagerly talk about the evil ideology of Islamicists but not of their own machinations and duplicitous politics. The rot started in Afghanistan under Soviet occupation, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Algeria where the US, UK, France and other Euro powers play their self-serving, immoral games… We have yet to hear a single member of our government accept that western interventions have led to terrorism to flourish.” 20 Jul 05 Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, had warned Tony Blair in Sept 2002 not to support the war in Iraq: "An assault on Iraq will inflame world opinion and jeopardise security and peace everywhere. London, one of the world’s major cities, has a great deal to lose from the war ..." On 20 Jul 05, he got to the roots of the terror attacks: “Decades of American and British interventions in the oil-rich Mid-East motivated the London bombers. The attacks would not have happened if western powers left Arab nations free to decide their own affairs after World War I. Instead they had often supported unsavoury governments in the region.” 18 Jul 05 Al Jazeera online ”Blair is still trying to deflect any responsibility for the London Bombings- Whatever Britain is being run by, it certainly isn't DEMOCRACY!” Media Nobody could challenge Galloway's argument rationally, so (as Chomsky has said) they have to resort to smears. Said the Sun (owned by Murdoch): "Vile Galloway confirmed he is Britain's No 1 traitor for blaming Tony Blair for the bombings." Armed Forces Minister Ingram description of Galloway: 'foul-mouthed thug', 'dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood'. The same minister had justified the use of cluster bombs in May 2003 on BBC Radio “Cluster bombs are not illegal. They are effective weapons…” The British had dropped 2000 Israeli-made cluster bombs on and around Basra in the month of April 2003 alone. The Mirror: "How can anyone be so wicked as to act as a megaphone for psychotic killers?" 12 Jul 05 Financial Times: "The ambitions of the jihadis cannot be divorced from entirely from the bloodshed in Iraq... the present insurgency serves both as a recruiting agent and training ground for al-Qaida's war against the west." The New York Times: "Mr Blair had finally to reap the bitter harvest of the war on terrorism..." NYT also interviewed some young Muslims for their opinions: Their views: "The suicide bomber was sick of the injustice and the double standards", "Why don't people ever think of the all the Iraqi kids who die?", "You get driven to do something like this - it just doesn't happen." 23 Jul 05 Economist  “Mr Blair’s refusal to acknowledge a possible link to Iraq is wrong.” Unless you give people a political explanation for what has happened, the only other explanation is an apocalyptic one, which the prime minister duly gave - barbarians versus civilisation. His tame cabinet members then parrot it. Bush had used the same explanation over the 9-11 attacks –“they hate us because of our way of life etc”. ------------------------------------------------------- Official reaction: [It is a general principle: causes of crime, truancy, bad behaviour, racism, bombings cannot be discussed, they may reveal failure of state policy. Instead the symptoms are tackled without the social or political context. This means that the victims are to blame due to some personal or cultural failings.] - no admission of wrong doing elsewhere (Iraq etc) - no sense of guilt or remorse, refusal to accept blame, no apology, no conciliatory attitude - refusal acknowledge the alienation, disaffection and deprivation in the Muslim communities, that have long suffered from inadequate state funding as well as vilification, Islamophobia and racism from the media for decades. - the Iraq link is not allowed to enter the debate as it implicates the state; - instead the govt acts as the aggrieved party and takes a tough line: the focus is shifted to the Muslims regarded as a dysfunctional community given to irrational behaviour and extremist tendencies. Question then is how to root out the extremists among the Muslims – without tackling the root causes?   If the killing of innocent civilians in London is barbaric, and it is, how does one define the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians? A viler barbarism.   [So why doesn’t killings abroad evoke horror? The answer: the media barely report the mass killings in Iraq or Afghanistan, the array of weapons used (cluster bombs, depleted uranium, napalm), destruction of infrastructure etc. No images of severed limbs or blood spattered faces are shown, no personal stories told.] There is also the racist belief among the western elites that the lives of Western civilians are somehow worth more than those living in other parts of the world - especially those parts being bombed and occupied by the West. If these attitudes become entrenched, so will terrorism. Most Londoners (as the rest of the country) were opposed to the Iraq war. Tragically, they have suffered the blow and paid the price for the re-election of Blair and a continuation of the war. John Lanchester, a highly regarded English novelist who once admired Blair, recently wrote of New Labour: "Its attitude to America is comparable only to the 'coital lock' which makes it impossible to separate dogs during sex." The solution then, as now, is political, not military. Security measures, anti-terror laws rushed through parliament, identity cards, a curtailment of civil liberties, will not solve the problem. The real solution lies in immediately ending the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.