Well, if you're a far-leftist, you believe that they are behind the attacks. John Pilger of Truthout writes an article titled "Lest We Forget-- These Were Blair's Bombs."
In all the coverage of last week's bombing of London, a basic truth is struggling to be heard. It is this: no one doubts the atrocious inhumanity of those who planted the bombs, but no one should also doubt that this has been coming since the day Tony Blair joined George Bush in their bloody invasion and occupation of Iraq. They are "Blair's bombs," and he ought not be allowed to evade culpability with yet another unctuous speech about "our way of life," which his own rapacious violence in other countries has despoiled.Indeed, the only reliable warning from British intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was that which predicted a sharp increase in terrorism "with Britain and Britons a target." A House of Commons committee has since verified this warning. Had Blair heeded it instead of conspiring to deceive the nation that Iraq offered a threat the Londoners who died on Thursday might be alive today, along with tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Three weeks ago, a classified CIA report revealed that the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq had turned that country into a focal point of terrorism. None of the intelligence agencies regarded Iraq as such a flashpoint before the invasion, however tyrannical the regime. On the contrary, in 2003, the CIA reported that Iraq "exported no terrorist threat to his neighbours" and that Saddam Hussein was "implacably hostile to Al-Qaeda."
Blair's and Bush's invasion changed all that. In invading a stricken and defenceless country at the heart of the Islamic and Arab world, their adventure became self-fulfilling; Blair's epic irresponsibility has brought the daily horrors of Iraq home to Britain.
This article reminds me of Christopher Hitchens appearance on Connected: Coast-to-Coast, when he totally demolished Ron Reagan.
RR: Christopher, I'm not sure that I buy the idea that these attacks are a sign that we're actually winning the war on terror. I mean, how many more victories like this do we really want to endure?CH: Well, it depends on how you think it started, sir. I mean, these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there. If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean. Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?
Article comments
1 - Bryan McKay
Well, if you're a far-leftist, you believe that they are behind the attacks.
Thanks for informing me of what I do or don't believe, Al. I'm sure, as someone not hailing from the far left, you're perfectly qualified to judge the feelings and motivations of the "leftists." I certainly think Bush and Blair aren't above reproach - their foreign policy decisions have made a lot of enemies around the world - but I don't know a single "far-leftist" who would condone the use of terrorism. The terrorists are almost certainly the ones responsible for the attacks. They can still be a reaction against American and English foreign policy, however. It is extraordinarily tragic and unfortunate that those in opposition to these policies couldn't find a more constructive and less mindlessly violent (and misdirected) outlet for their feelings. There is a culture of violence that exists amongst these fundamentalists (assuming they are the ones responsible) which must be cured. It is possible to assign proper blame to the terrorists while still acknowledging the fact that these attacks may have been an act of protest against the Bush/Blair regimes.
This is a voice coming from the Far Left, by the way. So I'd appreciate it if you didn't make such a bold and incorrect (and frankly, offensive) assumption to such a broad and diverse ideological faction.
2 - DrPat
would like people to believe that terrorist attacks are somehow Blair and Bush are the reason terrorists attack the innocent...
Huh? The politics of the post aside, this makes no sense.
3 - JR
Art Green: If we were not in Muslim lands before September 11th, what did they attack us for then?
Are you kidding? Do you really think there was no American presence in "Muslim lands" before 11-September-01?
4 - You
As per usual with Hitchens, people are left with a few questions. Read the following then re-examine the links Hitchens' makes.
Abu Nidal was killed by who?
Abu Nidal died of between one and four gunshot wounds in Baghdad in August 2002, believed by Palestinian sources to have been killed on the orders of Saddam Hussein, but said by the Iraqi government to have committed suicide. When he died, The Guardian wrote: "He was the patriot turned psychopath. He served only ... the warped personal drives that pushed him into hideous crime. He was the ultimate mercenary."
5 - dee
No bush and blair are not to blame. Only the terrorists who performed the acts are. But Saddam hussien and Iraq were not to blame for 9/11 either.
6 - Thad Anderson
The argument does not hold up that the attack of Iraq and Afghanistan seemingly "put them over the edge."
That's right, there is no clear evidence that the invasion of Iraq caused or increased the likelihood of the London bombings. But President Bush was the one who went out on a limb and made the absurd argument that invading Iraq would help prevent terror attacks in the West, which totally ignores everything we know about Al Qaeda: that it has a covert presence in scores of countries, and that it spends years planning and carrying out operations.
The London attack is a tragic reminder of why we must dedicate as much of the "War on Terror" as is possible to preventing terrorism.
Richard Clarke, "Against All Enemies," p. 268:
"In his famous 'Top Gun' moment on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, the President claimed that the invasion of Iraq was just one battle 'in the War on Terrorism that began on September 11.' It is not hard to understand why, after repeatedly hearing remarks like that, 70 percent of the American people believed that Saddam Hussein had attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Center . . . Only in September 2003, only after occupying Iraq, only after Vice President Cheney had stretched credulity on Meet the Press, did the President clearly state that there was 'no evidence that Iraq was involved with the September 11 attacks.' That new clarity might have come as a disappointing shock to American troops being targeted by snipers and blown up by landmines in Iraq."
7 - Dr. Tristan, M.D.
There are some who firmly feel G.W. Bush WAS physically behind the 9/11 attacks--and there are oodles and oodles on the internet under "9/11 Conspiracy" for those curious~~
Following "that thread" --- would it be that "surprising" if G.W.'s little "butt-buddy" Tony Blair "followed suit" and created his very own "Terrorist Crisis" to aid and abet him to consolidate his power & control over Britian, just as G.W. did here in the United States.....
for further reference evidence please study Machiavelli's "The Prince"---seems to be this Administration's favorite novel .....
8 - Thad Anderson
I have noticed three major logical flaws in 9/11 conspiracy theories:
1) Conspiracy theories tend to overestimate the ability of some group to neatly plot out human history, which is actually the result of an incredibly complex series of events by countless different groups/individuals.
2) 9/11 conspiracy theories always deny or downplay the fact that Al Qaeda and other groups are really out there, plotting attacks against us, and have been for years. Ironically, while many of them probably call the US "arrogant," 9/11 conspiracy theorists are the ones underestimating the significance of the rest of the world, by insisting that Americans are the only people capable of pulling off such an attack.
3) Some conspiracy theories point to the fact that the US supported the anti-Soviet mujahedeen rebels in Afghanistan during the 80's, and try to make a link between that and 9/11 - but anyone who is familiar with our approach to fighting communism during the Cold War knows that we supported tons of anti-Soviet groups, without any pretense that we agreed with them on anything else, or ever would again. It is one thing to question whether we want to make bedfellows with people like that, but it doesn't follow that those ad hoc Cold War alliances are evidence of some kind of link 20 years later.
9 - Eric Olsen
excellent points Thad, thanks
10 - Dr. Tristan, M.D.
i have noticed a major flaw in anti-conspiracy theories .......
they refuse to look at the evidence!
11 - gracefulboomer
Thad- comment #2, well-said!
Isalmofascist terrorists have been killing U.S. troops and civilians abroad for 30 yrs.
Whatever the relationship between Bush and Blair or Clinton and Blair before the 2000 elections, describing it in sexual shorthand is so lame.
12 - Dr. Tristan, M.D.
just a small moot reminder:
there's not one single shred of EVIDENCE in the London bombings ointing to ANYONE YET ~~~
amazing how so many are automatically (including Bush's "butt-buddy Tony Blair--and the big Boob himself: G.W.)
ASSUME it was Al-Queda or Islamo-Terrorists, eh...???
I guess the IRA and other 50 or so anti-Brit terrorists groups, not to mention lone-wolves, or even the Parisians-mad at not being awarded the Olympics--might, just MIGHT be possible "suspects ~~
but noooooooooooo ~~~~
everyone KNOWS it was the Islamo-Terrorists~~~~
13 - alex
really interesting. i posted on my blog having just watched the naudet brothers movie again. i struggle to believe either side sometimes, in particular with alex jones sounding so close to Ted Haggard when he speaks. but i wish the governments would confront them head on. not in a report or an inquiry but in a real debate in the public eye.