HOME	Your Most Trusted Source of Foreign News About the United States

By Yamin Zakaria

July 11, 2005

Original Article (English)

'God didn’t call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war ... We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world.' – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

We live in a world where Anglo-Saxon civilization assumes the right to unleash its military forces on anyone, but expects everyone else to howl “terrorism,” give minutes of silence, and stand shoulder-to-shoulder when they face retaliation!  As expected everyone is howling and describing it [the London bombings] as barbaric, an act of terrorism and an attack on humanity because the bombs were detonated in London and not in Baghdad or Kabul!

Fifty-four people killed at a wedding party in Iraq and many similar incidences throughout Afghanistan committed by trigger-happy U.S. pilots and soldiers should have elicited the same response.

The U.S. couldn’t identify a wedding party of men, women and children despite the most sophisticated equipment and training. So, they are either trained monkeys short of brain cells, they were high on alcohol and drugs prior to engaging in their combat missions, or they are terrorists that deliberately killed civilians. The latter is more likely, given that they have been following a policy of shoot first and ask questions later, so they bomb civilians from a high altitude, then apologize for their “mistake.” That gets packaged by media-terrorists as “collateral damage,” just a small price to pay in “the war on terror.”

At the G8 Summit, Blair and Bush referred to their noble work of relieving poverty (as if the West had no role in causing that poverty in the first place) and contrasting that with the acts of the terrorists in London. In fact, the G8 Summit is actually facilitating a new scramble for Africa, and let’s face it, capitalism and altruism don’t mix, they are polar opposites. 

They (Bush and Blair) portray the attacks on London as lacking any cause whatsoever. Examining the “cause” is an uncomfortable topic, since it can be self-incriminating.

What is even more perplexing is that the “man” who is leading the war on terror is doing so from the rear or from his bunker. George Bush says: “The war on terror goes on” as if this incident is justification for the war waged in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the problem is, the incident happened well after the war was waged. So this is a bit like prodding someone with a knife and then, when that person retaliates in self-defense, that becomes the reason for the initial prodding. 

If anything, the incident in London is a by-product of the initial aggressions in Iraq and Afghanistan; but rationally it cannot be the cause. Quite often terrorism and state terrorism depict the same cause and effect relationship; state terrorism is usually the cause, terrorism is the effect. Recognizing this would go a long way toward brining peace and resolving the conflict. 

Now the basic question, who did it and why? It could have been the IRA but this does not carry the hallmarks of an IRA attack, and they have been dormant for some time. The splinter group, the real IRA, do not have the logistical capability to carry out such attacks.

Theoretically, some may point to extreme French nationalists as the likely suspects, after France lost its Olympic bid to Britain and just after it had to watch the British gloat over the Battle of Trafalgar [the decisive battle of the Napoleonic Wars], not to mention reliving the old historic wounds from Agincourt to Waterloo [other French defeats]. But this too, is unlikely. 

For various reasons, many skeptics, war opponents and Muslims may point to the CIA and/or the Mossad as likely suspects for carrying out such an operation; to discredit their domestic opponents; justify prolonging their aggression against Muslims; or to build a climate for attacking Iran, and  hence we may expect other attacks of this sort.

But the most likely suspects, as the media has already pointed out, are the Muslims – and why?: Because they have reason to retaliate. The reason is not often elaborated upon, usually hidden behind the labels of “terrorism” and “extremism.”

Anyway, the al-Qaeda network comes to everyone’s lips. But no one is prepared to say that the bombings could have been carried out by relatives of those who perished in Fallujah, Ramadi, Anbar, etc. Let us not forget Hilla, where British forces deliberately dropped cluster bombs on civilians, maiming many, where even before the war there were no Iraqi or resistance forces present.

Blair referred to the “terrorists” wanting to destroy their way of life. If that is the case, then why have they chosen to attack after all this time? What is the motivation for wanting to destroy your way of life? How does it benefit them? Is Blair suggesting that they are mindless serial killers like those walking the streets of America, just looking for victims!

If it was an act of retaliation by Muslims, then the reasons are obvious. It is partly vengeance and partly to make the citizens of the West feel the reality of what their governments are doing in Iraq every day, so that they might get up and do something about it. All the Iraqis want is freedom from occupation and justice for the crimes committed against them. Even al-Qaeda did not demand that the U.S. and U.K. dismantle their way of life, just that they want to see their lands free of occupation and oppression.

To condemn the atrocity in London in isolation from everything else is to condone the real and bigger criminals (Bush and Blair) sitting at the G8 summit! Out of diplomatic protocol and niceties, all of the G8 members stood shoulder to shoulder. Muslims moderates as usual cannot do anything but follow their masters nor do whatever is fashionable and acceptable.

But where was the voice speaking out for the unprovoked aggression in Iraq that has taken the lives of 100,000 plus, which, if balance were sought, would take around 2000 more incidents of the kind that took place in London?