A question for any British readers ?

[kentuck]

Since the terrible bombings in your capitol, are people blaming the ill-advised war in Iraq as the cause? What are people saying about Tony Blair and George Bush behind the scenes? Is the political situation in your country very fragile at this time? What do you see happening in the days and weeks ahead?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. They pretty much answered that here......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=191x6805

[Anarcho-Socialist]

2. In my opinion, the war in Iraq holds a great deal of responsibility

as do of course the actions of the bombers themselves who deliberately targeted civilians. The bombers have matters worse for Muslims, racial bigots are using the bombings to stir up hatred against the British Muslim communities.

I don't think this is going to help Tony Blair in the long-run. People are already assuming the London attacks were revenge for the Iraq War. He's not running for re-election, but his ego wants to max-out his 3rd term. If he doesn't soon run-off into the sunset, he'll end up as unpopular as Thatcher was and he'll drag the Labour Party down with him.

[CJCRANE]

3. I'd say most people

are making the connection with Iraq as being fairly obvious.

There's a small minority of racists and Blairite apologists who won't face facts.

But most British people are conservatives (with a small "c") and they can see how this country has changed since the Iraq War and they don't like it.

[T_i_B]

4. A few people are making the connection

Most people round my way though, are just plain pissed off about the Jihadi's disrupting their daily commute.

As to what may happen in the future? Well we'll see how things pan out now we know the guy gunned down on Friday was innocent. That may well make the political situation slightly more "fragile" (although the whole political establishment has been behind Blair to the hilt in being outraged at the bombings).

[Tom Bombadil]

5. A few answers

Since the terrible bombings in your capitol, are people blaming the ill-advised war in Iraq as the cause?

Can't speak for everyone but IMO Iraq was a factor. I think it made a terrorist attack in the UK more likely and a majority of people in a recent opinion poll supported that view as well.

What are people saying about Tony Blair and George Bush behind the scenes?

Bush is widely disliked and I think even most Labour supporters are longing for Gordon Brown to take over from Blair.

What do you see happening in the days and weeks ahead?

Police and security services are going to be very edgy. A nervous public, particularly in London. The London bombers were British remember, which makes the situation even more sensitive.

[kentuck]

6. thanks for all your perspectives.

Nothing like a little violence to nurture irrationality. Your views are greatly appreciated.

[evermind]

7. Perhaps not "THE cause", but most Britons see a link

Most Britons see Iraq link to London bombings-poll

LONDON, July 19 (Reuters) - Two-thirds of Britons think the July 7 bombings in London were linked to Prime Minister Tony Blair's support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, according to a poll published on Tuesday.

The ICM survey for the Guardian newspaper found 33 percent of Britons believe Blair bears "a lot" of responsibility for the London bombings and a further 31 percent "a little".

Only 28 percent of those polled said Iraq and the London bombings were not connected.

( http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L19442078.htm )

And the experts agree:

Ignoring the Intelligence: How New Labour Helped Bring Terror to London

<snip>

Five weeks before the invasion Britain's intelligence chiefs warned Blair's government in strong terms that military action would increase the risk of terrorist attacks against Britain by groups such as al-Qaeda. As the UK Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee noted in 2003: "The JIC assessed that al-Qa'eda and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq".

As Britain's involvement in the occupation of Iraq continued, the government's advisers continued to warn of the possible consequences. A joint Home Office and Foreign Office dossier, ordered by Tony Blair following the train bombings in Madrid, identified Iraq as a "recruiting sergeant" for extremism. The analysis was that the Iraq war was acting as a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism. It said: "It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived 'double standard' in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the US. The perception is that passive 'oppression', as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to 'active oppression'. The war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam."

In 2005, the government was warned yet again. Just weeks before the London bombings, the Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre - including officials from MI5, MI6, GCHQ and the police - explicitly linked the Iraq war with an increased risk of terrorist activity in Britain. The report, leaked to the New York Times, said that "Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist-related activity in the UK".

<snip>

Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA who headed its bin Laden unit from 1993 to 1996, is unequivocal in his rejection of Blair's stance. "It's a policy issue. Bin Laden is fighting against us, not because of who we are....that we have elections or women in the workplace.....<or that> they hate us for our freedoms and our liberties. There's nothing further from the truth than that. Bin Laden has had success because he's focused on a limited number of U.S. foreign policies in the Muslim world, policies that are visible and are experienced by Muslims on a daily basis. Most of bin Laden's attacks since 2001 have been aimed at countries that supported the United States either in Afghanistan or in Iraq."

(Full article at: http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2005/07/ignoring-intelligence-how-new-labour.html )

The article goes on to quote Professor Robert Pape and the University of Chicago's Project on Suicide Terrorism: ""what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective."

Also lining up on the side of the bleeding obvious, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, in an annual report, aver that Al Qaeda are "Spurred on" by the war in Iraq.

Chiming in with their own piece of common knowledge, the Royal Institute of International Affairs note that : "the UK is at particular risk <from terrorists> because it is the closest ally of the United States, <and> has deployed armed forces in the military campaigns ... in Afghanistan and in Iraq"

Joining the chorus, Blair himself said in 2003: "there was obviously a danger that in attacking Iraq you ended up provoking the very thing you were trying to avoid". No kidding.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Interesting Link

I hadn't heard of The Democrat's Diary before, but he(?) looks very interesting. Thanks (extra thanks if that's your own blog).

[evermind]

13. Yep. Not mine, unfortunately :) Still, I was gratified to find that my

thinking on the importance of distinguishing between the recruits and the recruiters, where suicide attacks are concerned, is shared by an academic authority: "Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective".

I'd only posted yesterday in the uk forum that we shouldn't

lose the distinction between those committing suicide and those who are recruiting, planning and equipping the bombings. The latter (I'd suggest) are likely to have a quite different psychology. We don't know, but it seems they are probably manipulating the bombers ("brainwashing" is a term that's been used) in a quite calculating way, and they (as a network) have survived and operated for a number of years, mostly without being caught: that suggests a firmer grasp on reality than that of their suiciding tools.

So I don't think it's stretching too far to think that the real powers behind the attacks are in pursuit of primarily political goals related to The West's foreign policy, even when allowing that "freedom-hating" ideology plays a significant role for the bombers themselves.

I think distinguishing between the bombers and their manipulators may be critical to dismantling the confusion stemming from the standard Bush/Blair picture of a homogenous horde of freedom-hating ideologues, which they continually push in order to disassociate themselves from the more unpleasant consequences of their own policies.

Nice to find in the linked article that Professor Robert Pape and the University of Chicago's Project on Suicide Terrorism, as well as Michael Scheuer, seem to back me up on that.. :-)

[lockdown]

8. Most make the connection with Iraq,

despite government insistence that there's no link, but I don't know how many of them would say Iraq actually caused it. The media is full of how statesmanlike Blair has seemed, steady man in a crisis and all that, so in the short term it's almost a relief from his political problems. As the state of crisis subsides though he'll probably face a backlash, and I think most people will recognise that he shares personal responsibility for what's unfolded. Depending on how long the high alert lasts, maybe it'll shorten his leadership or maybe it'll extend it, don't know how long current wisdom expected him to last, but either way I'd be amazed if he was still PM in a year.

Interestingly, on some news show this morning there were disparaging comments about Gordon Brown in contrast to Blair's "statesmanship". Saying Brown has kept his head down throughout the Iraq debate and the current crisis, letting Blair take the hits, but given that how trusted can he be to handle crises as leader? Didn't catch who said but I wouldn't doubt it was a "friend of Tony".

[CJCRANE]

9. Iraq was Tony's policy,

there's no reason for Brown to take hits on it. Brown supported the policy inasmuch as he released the funds and toed the partyline in a few generic soundbites but I get the impression he doesn't really want to be associated with it.

[lockdown]

10. True

Agreed, just passing on the smear.

[mr blur]

11. Here's an interesting piece in today's Observer

Kind the Sunday Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/comment/story/0,16141,1535169,00.html