Agreed, but I am saying that once Blair made the decision to go to Iraq, something like this was always going to happen in the future. It was always a case of not if but when.

On the matter about these bombers, whether they were 'British' or not, they will have had outside influences, either from parents or from terror groups around the world, and I think that is most people's point. When these bombings happened, it was fairly obviously not going to be a John Smith.

I'm wrong in saying it could have been prevented, I cannot know that for sure can I!

But especially with the bombings in Istanbul, Madrid and now London, the justification has been because of these countries involvement in Iraq.

If you are going to stop any P@kistanis and Arabs into Britain because their children MIGHT grow up to be terrorists, (which is highly unlikely anyway) why not do the same with Irish families, seeing as the IRA still exists who could also produce a brand of terrorist offspring, and Columbians and other countries where drugs like cocaine and heroine come from, and any other nationalities that might bring some evil or other to our country??? As you can see, it's a bit flawed! Whoever thought of it seems a bit confused. Or maybe it's their way of saying get rid of the Pak!s without sounding like a racist??

.

What was supposed to be a thread about our shared shock and revulsion at these attacks has, predictably, begun to descend into the realms of finger-pointing and scape-goating. Sad.

Thanks NickinOX for the excellent post. And apologies for my not copying the header on the article, which was correctly identified as Gary Younge's. The man's a professional. Unlike myself, not being quick enough on the copy/paste to include the writer's name (apologies), nor even a number of reactionary paragraphs repeatedly invoking the phrase "hand-wringing liberals". Poor show indeed. ;-)

A few things, I thought, required comment from your long and interesting rebuff to Younge's article though.

1. You mention, early on, the Geneva conventions and how Al-Q doesn't apply to them because they aren't a national army. We already knew this because the US Government decided, in their wisdom, that the individuals they captured and abducted in various locations around the world and banged up in Bagram, Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, did not deserve the protections afforded to combatants under Geneva. So if we don't treat them with the respect afforded normal people under these conventions, why should we expect them to fight within these rules that we can abandon whenever it's expedient? Fair and valid though your point clearly is, we need consistency or we have chaos. Personally if I found out that innocent people like me were being tortured for no apparent reason, I'd be inclined to fight back to protect the rest of us against this fascism. Just like they do against our fascism.

2. Don't even bother arguing about the UN. It's only 50 years old so has hardly had the opportunity to get involved in most of the history relevant to these events -- and it's basically just a vehicle for the exercise of US power, so could hardly be expected to act even-handedly anyway (hence its inability to hold Israel to account for its myriad breaches). The UN is now irrelevant thanks to Dubya, it's time we abolished it and created something worthwhile instead.

3. You query the count of the Iraqi dead, and say "serious studies" question this figure. As I had only heard that no "serious" counts were made, I'd like to know which studies you mean, and what they came up with. I am not questioning your honesty, I am just curious.

4. You mention that Saddam used to "reward" the families of suicide bombers. This is true. Does this mean that, by extension, Saddam sponsored and supported terrorism? If so, then by extension so have the governments of most major powers, including the UK. Can we invade ourselves for regime change please? At least we know we have WMDs.

Nick10650066 you came by a different route to the same conclusion as me... namely that the illegal invasion of Iraq made us targets. Now go and read the childish abuse handed out by, er, Petealiator surprise surfcukinprise, when I pointed this out in 2003. Some people are so fcuking thick mate, but you saw through it.

Farawayeagle, I just had to make one point for you. 30 January 1972 was NOT zillions of years ago mate.

Edited by Moose (19 Jul 2005 9:34am)

face up to your share of the blame you filthy terrorist sympathiser - Petealiator 8/7/2005
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality - Theodor Adorno

I feel a bit bad HMHS - as though I have pissed on your chips slightly. You don't need to C an P when you are pretty good at putting your own arguments.

Generally I agree more with you more that Petealiator though. We on the left should stick together against reactionaries...

And just to note I can't stand most Guardian op-ed (Gary Younge is a t***!). I have to read it becuase of my job. My paper of choice is the Times!!

I do believe though that we should stop relating these terrorist atrocities to Iraq though.

Even if the Iraq war hadn't happened we would still be a terrorist target for being a western, democratic country - historically allied to the US.

Iraq has just been a convenient peg for people like Gary Younge to rationalise this atrocity - quite wrongly IMHO.

Fair enough mate (Balham Burner), I can fully understand your point of view there.

As NPN says just above your post, we cannot now withdraw from Iraq because it would be perceived as a victory for the terrorists. But therefore, by extension if this is true, the bombs must have been planted at least partly because of the occupation of Iraq. Otherwise, why would it be relevant that we now need to stick it out there? Do you see what I mean?

I don't know - nobody does - if these attacks would not have happened if we hadn't joined with Bush in Iraq... but I think it's reasonable to opine that we have become a more likely target because of it. As for this specific attack, we may never know. The people killed in the pre-9/11 embassy attacks in Africa were indeed mostly Africans; just as most of the people killed in the current Iraqi insurgency are other Iraqis. Such is the cruelty of terror and war.