Some on the left (and not just on the left) have talked of the invasion of Iraq
as creating the conditions for the carnage we witnessed in London this week but
I question the logic behind this argument.
I am reminded of a statement made some time back that ‘if Osama bin Laden
didn’t exist if would have been necessary to invent him’ for if,
as I contend that to justify the ‘war on terror’ it was necessary
to invent the terrorist threat first, then come hell or high water, acts such
as the London bombing are a necessary and inevitable result of the larger strategic
mission of the USUK to justify their even greater acts of carnage and aggression.
Thus whether directly or indirectly, I contend that the governments of Bush
and Blair are complicit partners in these acts of terror.
People need to ask themselves whether an organisation allegedly dedicated to
driving the ‘infidel’ from Arab countries is likely to succeed by
blowing up ordinary working people on the streets of London? Everything about
‘al-Qu’eda’ stinks of set up, from its origins in Saudi Arabia
to its alleged role in 9/11. Then there are the bizarre actions of the US government
preceding and following 9/11 that even has millions of Americans wondering what
the hell their government is up to.
Blair was quick to say that it was timed to coincide with the G8 meeting but
equally, it could be argued that the timing was a mite too convenient. The bombings
have succeeded in pushing the G8 off the front page and have given Bush and
Blair a ready-made reason to justify the continued occupation of Iraq and to
up the ‘war on terror’. One writer has even suggested that Britain
was about to announce a date for a pull-out from its occupation of Iraq, an
action that the atrocity this week would surely halt.
By comparison, Bush’s statement that
On the one hand, we got people here who are working to alleviate poverty and
to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS and that are working on ways to
have a clean environment.
is not only staggering in its hypocrisy, the bombing makes Bush and Blair appear
to be squeaky clean when in actuality it stands reality on its head. Bush goes
on to tell us
And on the other hand, you’ve got people killing innocent people. And
the contrast couldn’t be clearer between the intentions and the hearts
of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those
who kill, those who’ve got such evil in their heart that they will take
the lives of innocent folks.
Of course, the media will not remind us that the man who made the statement
is responsible for destroying a country, killing tens of thousands of innocent
people. A man hardly in any position to tell us about contrasts!
So who stands to gain from the bombings? Surely not al-Qu’eda unless
that is, al-Qu’eda is in actuality a US creation. There are lessons to
be learned from the US ‘war on drugs’ that followed a somewhat similar
path insofar as under the pretext of eradicating cocaine production in Colombia,
it not only supported a regime that was inextricably connected to trafficking
in cocaine, it gave the US a pretext to set up bases and wage a war not on cocaine
but on the liberation movement that threatened its investments.
Earlier still, during its war on the people of Vietnam, the US through the
CIA and Air America trafficked in heroin and later, the CIA performed a similar
role in its illegal support for the contras in Nicaragua using the sale of cocaine
to fund its operations in the ‘guns for drugs’ operation run by
Colonel ‘Ollie’ North.
The big difference of course is the impact of using a terrorist organization
as a pretext for the US war on the planet. Smuggling cocaine into the US to
destabilize and suppress dissent in poor black communities doesn’t have
quite the same impact as a bomb on a bus or in a crowded train, nor can it be
used to justify the state’s crackdown on dissent or civil rights.
The media frenzy that is accompanying the latest outrage doesn’t leave
any room for thinking about who really stands to gain from the latest bombings.
Seamlessly, from Downing Street to ‘Fleet’ Street, the headlines
scream al-Qu’eda and who is to gainsay this tidal wave of propaganda.
Without a shred of proof as to who is really behind the awful bombings, the
public is led to believe beyond all shadow of a doubt that it’s ‘Islamic
fanatics’ and in doing so creates a hysteria that impacts so disastrously
on the Muslim communities of the UK and elsewhere in the West.
Labeling the terrorists as ‘Islamic extremists’ or ‘Muslim
fanatics’ exploits the xenophobia and racism that is never far below the
surface of our allegedly multi-cultural society. Would the media label the far-right
neo-Nazis as ‘Christian extremists’ or ‘Protestant fanatics’
I wonder? And imagine the outcry were anyone to link neo-Nazis to the Church
of England, yet those who preach and practice hate and violence against black
people would undoubtedly identify themselves as Christians.
The important aspect of the way the state and the media present this outrage
is the role it plays in justifying a policy of increasing repression at home
as well as the actions of the state abroad, for the two go hand-in-hand. In
demonizing Muslims it dehumanizes them, thus justifying acts of state terror.
Shorn of their humanity makes it easy to persuade the populace to go along with
a programme of state terror that is, after all the logic behind the ideology
And no doubt within a short while I won’t be able to board a bus or a
tube without a body search and a demand for some id. In short, the carnage serves
to justify the creation of a 21st century fascist state, for it is no accident
that the bombing occurred just as the actions of Bush and Blair are being questioned
as never before, not only its occupation of Iraq but their policies viz the
poor of the world and climate change.
If we need to find culprits, look no further than Bush and Blair for if anyone
is to be blamed for this week’s carnage, it is surely these two barbarians
in blue suits.