The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 48: 24 August 2005

REALISM

A satirical observation on the Government's position regarding the link between the bombings and the war in Iraq from Jesse Armstrong in the Guardian:

Iraq

My top tip on Iraq, if you want to stick with the government, the opposition and the Americans, is: try not to talk about it. Look at your shoes. Hope the conversation moves on - then, maybe, just possibly in 20 years, it might be possible to try to bring the conversation back round to it and say, "Ha, remember, well, in the long, long run it's kind of sort of turned out for the best." If it doesn't, just keep shtoom.

It's important to remember if you do end up trying to defend the war that there is no link between the war and the London bombings. I'm afraid there is no argument I can furnish you with to support this view, so adopt the official line, which is just to state it. It does seem at least to take on the aura of possibility if you keep saying it.

In an article headlined, 'Call for shake-up to gauge terrorism threat' in the FT (page 2), Roger Blitz reports:

Michael Clarke, professor of defence studies at King's College, said soft targets and indiscriminate attacks were likely and a switch from London to other cities was possible.

The rationale of the attacks would be UK involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the argument of jihadis, or holy warriors, would be that all British residents were vulnerable.

Incidentally, the King's College Centre for Defence Studies warned that,

'empowering mainstream Muslim organisations was no guarantee to curbing extremism. There was a "very real fear that an attack may occur in an area with a large Muslim population, such as Bradford or Leeds, if only to drive a wedge within that community''.'

Returning to our main theme in these Media Reviews, the link between British foreign policy and the risk of terror is still out of sight, and the centre of media attention is still on the 'evil ideology' of extremist/moderate/all kinds of Islam, despite the frank acknowledgement of the truth by those who study these matters.

'EXTREMIST' ISLAM

Three perspectives on 'Islamic extremism' in the FT today, including an article by a former comrade of Osama bin Laden.

'Moderate Muslims must be encouraged' - Letters from Eugene B. Kogan of 'Americans for Informed Democracy', pressing for 'moderate Muslims' to be made to 'understand' their stake in the success of the 'war on terror'; and Dr Janusz Kowalik, also from the US, agreeing with the the parallels between Communism and Islamism, but suggesting that Islamism is an even more 'crude and backward ideology'.

On page 7, the paper edition headline reads 'Australian Muslims pressed on extremism'. Online the headline is 'Australia’s PM reaches out to moderate Muslims'. The FT notes that 'the meeting was not without its controversy. Mr Howard refused to invite Muslim representatives he labelled “extremist” on the grounds that he did not want to give them a platform to voice their views.'

Online, this note of realism is sounded (but is not in the paper edition):

'Although many moderate leaders say the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are providing fuel for extremist elements, and the presence of Australian troops in both theatres was discussed on Tuesday, withdrawal is not on the Howard government agenda.'

' “The premature withdrawal from Iraq of international forces won't placate extremists: it will empower extremists,” Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, said on Tuesday. Australia recently agreed to lift the number of troops operating in both Iraq and Afghanistan.'

Finally, the FT (paid-for access here or page 15) carries an extraordinary article by Khalid Khawaja, who describes himself as follows:

'I am a practising, long-bearded Muslim, a Pakistani who served in my country’s intelligence service and air force and, long ago, a close companion of Osama bin Laden when we fought together to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan. I am what you in the west would stereotype as a terrorist, an extremist or an Islamist radical.'

The former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) official (1985-1987) calls for better education in Muslim madrassahs (schools), and for more direct contact and exchanges between 'long-bearded, perhaps even "terrorist" branded Muslims' and British police, intelligence and political officials. 'Why perpetuate mistrust when opening channels between both sides could avoid so much loss of life?' he asks.

There is no mention of British foreign policy.

Incidentally, quite in line with the analysis and policy prescriptions in the Home Office/Foreign Office report Young Muslims and Extremism, the British trade union movement, in the shape of the Trade Union Council, is calling for government funding to tackle poverty and poor health in Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim communities. The TUC report is here. Brendan Barber, head of the TUC said:

'Social deprivation and poverty is no excuse for criminality, but it can be a breeding ground for poisonous beliefs of all kinds. Even if there had been no bomb attacks, a civilised country should not tolerate such high levels of poverty and deprivation.'

'We have had too many cheap calls for Muslims to integrate, some of which have come close to asking people to give up crucial parts of their identity.'

'Building a tolerant liberal society where we are all free to express the different sides that make up anyone's identity will be that much harder when some groups suffer from such extreme levels of deprivation and poverty.'

This is sensible, constructive and humane, in distinct contrast to government policy and media frenzy.

EXTREMIST CHRISTIANITY

As we all know, the Home Secretary Charles Clarke is about to launch new laws criminalizing the 'glorification' or 'justification' of terrorism - 'indirect incitement' of terrorism.

Indeed, the British Government is seeking to win a UN ruling on 'incitement' to terrorism: 'to ask the security council to approve a resolution or statement calling on all UN members to adopt legislation outlawing the incitement of terrorism'.

What then is the British Government going to do about not indirect incitement, but direct incitement to terrorism, to assassination of a head of state, to be precise?

'America's leading televangelist appeared to take Christian fundamentalism into uncharted territory yesterday when he called for the assassination of Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez.'

'Speaking on his own channel, the Christian Broadcasting Network, Pat Robertson said President Chávez should be targeted because he was a "terrific danger" whose country, a big supplier of oil to the US, was "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Islamic extremism all over the country".'

'Furthermore, killing the Venezuelan leader would be "a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability." ' (Guardian, page 3)

' “If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.” '

' “We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.” ' (Times, page 38)

'The Venezuelan government expressed outrage and said it was examining its legal options. Vice-president José Vicente Rangel said: "It's huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those." '

'The chairman of America's National Council of Churches, Bob Edgar, said Mr Robertson's declaration was "appalling to the point of disbelief.'

' "It defies logic that this so-called evangelist is using his media power not to win people to faith but to encourage them to support the murder of a foreign leader." ' (Guardian, page 3)

The Telegraph brief report on the subject (apparently not available online) notes that the Venezuelan vice-president, Jose Vicente Rangel, can called on the US authorities to act against what he called a "criminal statement". (page 12) In the United States, so far as we understand it, incitement to terrorism or murder is not a criminal statement under the First Amendment, but inciting the death of the President can bring enormous police surveillance.

Here we have a 'preacher of hatred', a 'radical cleric', an inciter of terrorism, a man who two years ago jokingly called for the nuclear bombing of the State Department in Washington (Guardian). He is connected to a powerful military force that is engaged in violent struggles across the world.

Is he going to be excluded from the UK? If he comes to the UK, is he going to be the subject of police surveillance, detention without charge or trial, control orders, and so on?

SNIPPETS

7/7 BOMBS HAND-TRIGGERED - BOMBERS NOT DUPED

The Guardian: 'Initially it was thought the bombs might have been attached to devices on mobile phones, a method used in the Madrid bombings to devastating effect... The news that the bomb attacks were carried out with button-like devices triggering the bombs was confirmed to the Guardian by several separate senior police and counter-terrorism sources.'

' "There were no mobile phone timers on the seventh," one source said. "They were manually activated"... Former anti-terrorism squad bomb expert Tony Dedman said: "It could be a positive push switch, where you push it and the bomb explodes, or a dead man's switch where you push it in and it won't go off until you release it." '

First implication: 'The discovery scotches the theory that the four British-born men may have been duped into carrying the rucksack bombs on to three crowded tube trains and one bus, unaware they were going to explode.'

Second implication: 'In the failed attacks on July 21, where the bombs were recovered largely intact, the devices were also to be "manually activated", the sources said.' This reduces the differences between the two groups.

Later in the same issue:

'Suggestions that some of the two bomb teams may have met at a whitewater rafting trip in north Wales have so far not stood up, with police sources saying this now looks "less and less likely".

'But experts believe a homemade peroxide-based explosive compound was used in both the July 7 and the July 21 devices, which had striking similarities. Even if the bombers did not know each other, others close to them may have been in contact, although the idea of a mastermind manipulating a bomb campaign is also fading.'

JNV welcomes feedback.