Searching For Terrorists’ Motives

Only hours after the terrorist bombing of three subway trains and a bus in London, Prime Minister Blair insisted that the attack was not motivated by opposition to the invasion of Iraq and “not founded on injustice.” Instead, he explained, “it is founded on a belief, one whose fanaticism is such that it can’t be moderated.” The bombers, Blair explained, were driven by “an evil ideology” that needed to be confronted “by the force of reason.”

Ironically, no lesser man than the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, vehemently disagreed with the prime minister. While emphatically condemning suicide bombings, he saw the mistreatment and despair of oppressed people as understandable motivation for terrorist brutality and self-sacrifice. “Under foreign occupation and denied a right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs, … I suspect that if it had happened here in England, we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves.” “But I don’t just denounce suicide bombers,” the mayor added, “I denounce those government which use indiscriminate slaughter to advance their foreign policy.”

George Galloway, a Labor Party Member of Parliament, called on Blair “to remove people in this country from harms way … by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts of the Middle East.” As reported by BBC, Blair’s backers were quick to call him “a damn fool,” “sub-human,” “insane,” “pro-fascist filth,” “traitor,” and “friend of Saddam Hussein.”

A Guardian/ICM poll showed that 75 percent of the Britons responding “believe there is a link between Tony Blair’s decision to invade Iraq and the London bombings.” Blair lied, the critics tend to stress, in order to take the United Kingdom into the occupation of Iraq in the full knowledge that it would increase the chances of a terrorist attack. Michael Scheurer, the former CIA analyst of Bin Laden, concluded that the “chickens were coming home to roost.”

Ironically, the terrorist group that has claimed responsibility stated essentially the same as Blair’s critics: “In response to the massacres that Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan, the holy warriors have undertaken a blessed raid in London.” Chatham House, formerly known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had “no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism.”

Unable to offer any specific proof, Mr. Blair claimed that the perpetrators were Islamic fundamentalists who wanted to destroy the British way of life. Blair even insisted that people who used the occupation of Iraq as explanation for the bombings “have a perverse view of Islam.” He routinely, however, chooses to ignore the deep and widespread Muslim despair over the continuing British interference in the Middle East, even now after centuries of British colonialism in Asia and Africa.

It is not Muslims troops, Muslim media have pointed out, that have ever tried to invade or even subjugate Britain and the U.S. Anybody who knows how easily Muslims feel humiliated, not only by foreign interference with their culture but also by blunt criticism, ridicule, and vilification, will understand why fanatical, impatient, and violence-prone men, even women, may all too easily become tempted to see a campaign of terror as the only way to make the foreigners respect their right to independence.

John McDonald, chairman of the 500-person strong Labor Representation Committee warned that “as long as Britain remains in occupation of Iraq, the terrorist recruiters will have the argument they seek to attract more susceptible young recruits to bomb teams.” Former Labor cabinet minister Clare Short was more specific: “Some of the voices that have been coming from the Government talk as though this is all evil, and that everything we are doing is fine, when in fact we are implicated in the slaughter of large numbers of civilians in Iraq and supporting a Middle east policy that for the Palestinians creates this sense of double standards—that feeds anger.”

Wolf D. Fuhrig	Home	07-31-05
Searching For Terrorists' Motives
Only hours after the terrorist bombing of three subway trains and a bus in London, Prime Minister Blair insisted that the attack was not motivated by opposition to the invasion of Iraq and “not founded on injustice.” Instead, he explained, “it is founded on a belief, one whose fanaticism is such that it can’t be moderated.” The bombers, Blair explained, were driven by “an evil ideology” that needed to be confronted “by the force of reason.” Ironically, no lesser man than the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, vehemently disagreed with the prime minister. While emphatically condemning suicide bombings, he saw the mistreatment and despair of oppressed people as understandable motivation for terrorist brutality and self-sacrifice. “Under foreign occupation and denied a right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs, … I suspect that if it had happened here in England, we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves.” “But I don’t just denounce suicide bombers,” the mayor added, “I denounce those government which use indiscriminate slaughter to advance their foreign policy.” George Galloway, a Labor Party Member of Parliament, called on Blair “to remove people in this country from harms way … by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts of the Middle East.” As reported by BBC, Blair’s backers were quick to call him “a damn fool,” “sub-human,” “insane,” “pro-fascist filth,” “traitor,” and “friend of Saddam Hussein.” A Guardian/ICM poll showed that 75 percent of the Britons responding “believe there is a link between Tony Blair’s decision to invade Iraq and the London bombings.” Blair lied, the critics tend to stress, in order to take the United Kingdom into the occupation of Iraq in the full knowledge that it would increase the chances of a terrorist attack. Michael Scheurer, the former CIA analyst of Bin Laden, concluded that the “chickens were coming home to roost.” Ironically, the terrorist group that has claimed responsibility stated essentially the same as Blair’s critics: “In response to the massacres that Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan, the holy warriors have undertaken a blessed raid in London.” Chatham House, formerly known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had “no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism.” Unable to offer any specific proof, Mr. Blair claimed that the perpetrators were Islamic fundamentalists who wanted to destroy the British way of life. Blair even insisted that people who used the occupation of Iraq as explanation for the bombings “have a perverse view of Islam.” He routinely, however, chooses to ignore the deep and widespread Muslim despair over the continuing British interference in the Middle East, even now after centuries of British colonialism in Asia and Africa. It is not Muslims troops, Muslim media have pointed out, that have ever tried to invade or even subjugate Britain and the U.S. Anybody who knows how easily Muslims feel humiliated, not only by foreign interference with their culture but also by blunt criticism, ridicule, and vilification, will understand why fanatical, impatient, and violence-prone men, even women, may all too easily become tempted to see a campaign of terror as the only way to make the foreigners respect their right to independence. John McDonald, chairman of the 500-person strong Labor Representation Committee warned that “as long as Britain remains in occupation of Iraq, the terrorist recruiters will have the argument they seek to attract more susceptible young recruits to bomb teams.” Former Labor cabinet minister Clare Short was more specific: “Some of the voices that have been coming from the Government talk as though this is all evil, and that everything we are doing is fine, when in fact we are implicated in the slaughter of large numbers of civilians in Iraq and supporting a Middle east policy that for the Palestinians creates this sense of double standards—that feeds anger.”

Wolf D. Fuhrig

Home

07-31-05

Searching For Terrorists' Motives