“Kill a few you are a murderer, kill millions it is a foreign policy”
The above mentioned statement pithily summarises the media propaganda emanating from the US, UK and Israel regarding the current conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. Lies, propaganda and denial are the fuel to perpetuate any conflict. So, we see the constant condemnation of minor ‘terrorism’ (retaliation) while conveniently ignoring major state-terrorism! How often we hear from the gutter tabloid press and the so-called experts that suicide bombers are motivated by the virgins in paradise. If a man is solely driven by such carnal desires he would not seek martyrdom, as virgins are in abundance in the Islamic world and a real shortage of virgins are in the West, where it is considered almost a social taboo!
Despite the lies emanating from the British government and the mass media regarding the recent bombings, the British public like the Spaniards, after the Madrid bombings, know who the real culprits are. As do the parents of the British soldiers who have perished in the illegal war in Iraq. It is not the bombs and bullets that killed them, but those who sent them to their death by attacking other nations without any provocation.
Full credit has to be given to the British public who have remained calm, setting an example for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The credit is really due when you consider that there is the constant incitement by the xenophobic media in subtle and overt forms.
Now, the British government, the mass media and even the Muslim moderates are in one camp deliberately evading the real discussion of why the bombings took place, and not just who did the bombings. Although we do not know the identity of the bombers, but let us assume that the bombings were carried out by the Muslims, in retaliation for the current slaughter taking place in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. Let us proceed to analyse the brief responses to the question of, ‘why’, from the three parties.
(a) Downing Street
Tony Blair with Bush stated that the bombers wanted to destroy their “way of life”. Similar rhetoric appeared in the newspapers, speculating that the bombers wish to enforce Islam on the West. If this is some kind of spin, it is bizarre. I do not remember reading any communiquÃ© from Osama Bin Laden and the likes demanding that the West should implement Islamic Laws, or convert to Islam or else they will be attacked. It is totally irrational, as Islamic Laws can only be binding on the Muslims; forced conversion is clearly void in Islam.
Recently on BBC TV, even a CIA officer clearly stated that the people in the Middle East are not concerned about who we are, but what we do to them. They are not interested in how we live our life; all they want is the removal of the bases and to stop the West interfering in those countries and readdress the bias towards Israel.
Similar denial of the Iraq-link to the London bombings was expressed by the British Home Secretary, Charles Clarke; and he cited 9/11 in support of his argument which took place before the Iraq war. But, the incident took place in the US not the UK! Hence, either Charles Clerk is muddled on his geography or perhaps he thinks the US is still part of the British Empire! In addition, 9/11 also has its reasons behind it, but it is certainly not the day when Adam and Eve were born!
Why do the media fail to ask very obvious questions, why London and Madrid was targeted but not cities like Berlin, Oslo, Stockholm, Helsinki, Prague, Geneva and Vienna? I do not recall a single such incident, that indiscriminately targeted the citizens of ‘Western democracies’ in countries like Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic, Switzerland, or Austria? In fact Bin Laden himself asked the same question: “Why do we not attack Sweden?”
The mayor of London, Ken Livingston and the British Security Services predicted an attack, and Ken Livingston was so convinced that he said if it did not happen it would be a miracle. There must have been some reason that led Ken Livingston to be so resolute in making the prediction in the first place. Therefore, an action that is predictable, by definition, cannot be the unpredictable spontaneous act of a mindless terrorist.
A so-called expert, Kevin Toolis, wrote in the London Tabloid press, the Daily Mirror: “If the Islamic fanatics who bombed London ever achieved their aims and took power, Britain would become an Iranian-style Islamic Republic.” He rambled on with his superficial diatribe attacking Islam, and argued that the bombings are part of the plan to take power in the UK; it made even Fox-TV look objective and intelligent! Did the bombers say give us the keys to Downing Street or else we bomb you? Is Kevin Toolis seriously suggesting that the bombers are going to walk into Downing Street with their outdated RPG’s, bypassing the entire British Army, Navy and Air Force, and the 60 million Brits in fear, will simply submit?
The ‘expert’, goes on to confess the possible gamut of reasons behind the Islamic resistance as he states: “If they won their war of terror, bin Laden would take control of the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia, expel all American troops from Iraq…” So, it is wrong for an Arab/Muslim like Bin Laden, to take control of their oil supply, but not for the Western oil companies! What’s next, should we apologise for the oil being there, or for being born in that region? It seems that, Kevin Toolis is suggesting, the Arabs should give up the oil fields, preferably turned into permanent US bases and they can have the rest of the Middle East, except what Ariel Sharon wants i.e. from the Nile to the Euphrates. There you go, no need for endless road maps, when we have such profound columnists with such amicable solutions to the conflict!
(C). Muslim Moderates
Equally culpable are the Muslims moderates and pseudo scholars, with their usual one-track condemnations of the bombings even before they have been presented with evidence. Why could they not once demand the British public to condemn the daily routine bombings and torture in Iraq and Afghanistan? One of the MCB members, Sher Khan, wrote: “Whatever people feel about the current UK foreign policy, this cannot be used as an excuse to murder innocent people going about their business.”
Why can’t that same rule of murdering innocent people also apply to the British foreign policy, in the same vigorous manner? Instead, the UK foreign policy is subjective for Sher Khan, as people can have different ‘feelings’ about it, even though we see on TV, how the Iraqi children and civilians torn to bits by the British cluster bombs, about 100,000 innocent civilians to date. Are they not innocent?
Sher Khan is cautious in defending the Iraqis as he does not want to upset his fellow Labour MCB members, and perhaps jeopardise his chances of a Knighthood. Perhaps we will be privileged by another ‘fatwa’ like the one given over Afghanistan by ‘Mufti’ Inayat Bunglawala, maybe this time he will be encouraging Blair to bomb the “narrow minded” citizens of Iran or Syria. I have a dream – one day I would like to dispatch Inayat Bunglawala and other MCB members to Afghanistan or Iraq, and see how they keep their ‘heads’ while justifying their ‘fatwas’ and other odious statements. I am sure by then their tongues will switch direction, and they will become radical Talibans or Sunni insurgents.
By evading the issue, letting the authorities hear what they want to hear, it does not resolve the issue; it actually does more harm than good. It misleads both Muslims and non-Muslims.
Who is Innocent and who is Guilty?
To answer this question, ask who the real aggressor is. What harm did the Iraqis or its civilians do to the people of the UK? It was the British government that launched the recent wars after applying the genocidal sanctions for a decade, and they are fully complicit for all the crimes committed by the US.
Everyone takes it for granted that the civilians in the UK are innocent, but are they really disconnected from the UK foreign policy? Especially, as the civilians have voted for the Labour Party and therefore endorsed the war in Iraq, endorsed the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq? Surely, if innocent Iraqis as a whole could be punished for its dictator, then this should apply even more to a democracy where the people’s voice dictates policy and manifesto. Hence, the Labour government, the Labour voters and the silent spectators are clearly guilty in the major state-terrorism, and genocide against Iraq.
In contrast, the civilians in Iraq had no say in their government’s foreign policy, nor were they party to launch any attack on the UK. They are at least as innocent as those commuters in London, if not more so.
The media portrayed the bombers as pure evil, like some kind of Vampires that enjoy feeding on human blood. This is expected and understandable at the initial stages, and looking at it in isolation nobody will dispute this. But how can we pass the guilty verdict without knowing the culprits and their testimony? Suppose, we discover that the bombers are Iraqi, they have lost family, roasted by the Napalm in Fallujah, other members shot dead by US marines, daughters raped in Abu-Ghraib. Then which Londoner will come forward, knowing that they voted and re-elected Tony Blair as a nation, into power, and then put those accusations to those Iraqis. As the alleged statements of Jesus in the Gospel of John –” “let him who is without sin cast the first stone”.
If bombing London was evil, then greater evil was to bomb Iraq for decades with far greater intensity and loss of life! The former may be excusable but the latter certainly is not. But we live in a world where state-terrorism can be excused, but not the minor ‘terrorism’ of just retaliation. Thus, the victims are portrayed as aggressors, and the aggressors are portrayed as victims!
We need to dispel media and the government lies and it is essential and only part of the overall solution to ending the conflict; the cycle of violence. One of the real reasons for evading a genuine discussion is the fear of recognising and being recognised by others as culpable in the recent bombings. It looked very painful for the ministers in the British government, and the media, to even to utter the word Iraq in relation to the London bombings –” today’s vocabulary is restricted by GUILT.