The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 58: 3 September 2005

The 7/7 Bombers Explain Part II: The Editorials

Contents

Editorials

Outright Denial / Tentative Realism

Editorials - Telegraph

Atrocities And Responsibility, Fallujah, The Suffering Of The Ummah,

Editorials - Times

Excuses And Reasons, In The Land Of Two Rivers

Editorials - Independent / Guardian

Atrocities In Iraq

EDITORIALS

OUTRIGHT DENIAL / TENTATIVE REALISM

As everyone knows, the most effective editorializing in journalism happens in the news reports (see Chomsky on the mass media), but as there happen to be a crop of editorials on the 7/7 bomber video today, we'll examine them first.

The spectrum in the 'quality papers' is silence (FT), aggressive denial (Times, Telegraph), and tentative realism (Guardian, Independent).

EDITORIALS - TELEGRAPH

ATROCITIES AND RESPONSIBILITY

The Telegraph, in 'Death, lies and videotape', opens by admitting that, after viewing the Khan video (full transcript yesterday), it is 'tempting' to 'to give serious consideration to the idea that if such people can feel this way about us then we must be doing something wrong.' Temptation must be resisted. Khan is wrong about the Western democracies:

'We do not wage war on people for being Muslim.'

'Muslim civilians have been killed in Iraq by Coalition forces, as is tragically inevitable in the prosecution of war and counterinsurgency. But that war, whatever its merits in strategic and political terms, was waged against a regime not only tyrannical and murderous - against its own people - but also secular.'

'... we are not responsible for atrocities against Muslims, and we did not bring terrorist attacks on ourselves.'

As a matter of logic, it does not follow from the assertion, 'We do not wage war on people for being Muslim', that 'we are not responsible for atrocities against Muslims'.

Mohammed Sidique Khan might have claimed truthfully, 'I do not wage war on people for being Londoners'. He is not known to have expressed any particular hatred of Londoners for being Londoners. However, it is still true that he is responsible for atrocities against Londoners.

The Russian government wages war on people in Chechnya because they wish to break free of the domination of Moscow. President Putin might claim truthfully that he does wages war on Chechens for being Muslims. However, it is also true that he is responsible for atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya.

As it happens, the Telegraph is completely correct in saying that Western governments, and the British Government in particular, do not make war on the basis of religion. If the West was anti-Islam in its foreign policy, it would have , among other things, replaced the 'extremist' House of Saud and eliminated or expelled much of the population of the country in order to secure control of the unparallelled riches of the Arabian peninsula.

However, it does not follow that 'we' are innocent of atrocities against Muslims. This requires evidence.

The evidence is complex and beyond the scope of today's column (Bosnia and Kosovo complicate matters). Let us, then, simply take the example given by the Telegraph: Iraq.

FALLUJAH

Setting aside the arguments about the legitimacy of the occupation itself, is it the case that the increase in civilian deaths in Iraq is the result of the inevitable hazards of war and counter-insurgency? One thinks of bombs going astray, as they always will; of firefights in urban settings, where families cower behind thin walls, and so on.

Fallujah became the most dangerous place in Iraq for foreign forces after the 28 April massacre of 13 unarmed civilians. The assault last November was another atrocity. (Detailed discussion of other relevant issues to do with Iraq below.)

THE SUFFERING OF THE UMMAH

The Telegraph continues:

'And yet Khan was somehow convinced that the whole Western world is engaged in a conspiracy against Islam - convinced, most likely, by one or more of the obsessive fanatics, some of whom the Home Secretary is bumblingly attempting to deport, the ruthless pedlars of hatred who prey on young men eager to embrace a fallacious certainty rather than grapple with the frustrations of debate.'

So far the police investigation of the 7/7 bombings does not appear to have uncovered a crucial role for any 'pedlars of hatred'. No such individuals have been publicly identified (though earlier in the process of Mohammad Sidique Khan's evolution, it has been said that one such preacher may have influenced him).

What we do know of the 7/7 group is that they were keenly alive to the suffering of Muslims around the world. To repeat material we have repeated before:

As we pointed out on 17 July, a Sunday Telegraph profile of the Leeds trio, Hasib Hussain, Shehzad Tanweer and Mohammed Sidique Khan, notes that 'it was in a backstreet bookshop that the trio "turned religious" about four years ago, says one friend':

'I think the shop is innocent,' the friend says, 'but I think it sold under-the-counter stuff, videos of what was happening in Bosnia, Iraq and Chechnya. Stuff the television could not show. Rapes, murders, mutilation, all saying: "Look what is happening to your Muslim brothers and sisters." You see that and you start to get angry. That was the beginning.' The 29-year-old, who refused to give his name, added: 'From that, you feel you want to learn more about religion, about your Muslim brothers and sisters around the world getting murdered.'

Associates said they 'brand[ed] him a "fruitcake" because of his ranting about Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan.'

The suffering of Muslims in Bosnia, Iraq, Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, Egypt, Algeria and so on is not the invention of 'pedlars of hatred'. It is a simple reality.

Western indifference to such suffering is also not the invention of 'pedlars of hatred'. It is a simple and shameful reality.

Western indifference to, or positive support for, Russian brutality in Chechnya, Israeli brutality in Palestine, Indian brutality in Kashmir , government brutality in Egypt, Algeria and other countries, is also not the invention of 'pedlars of hatred'. It is a searing reality.

This pattern of brutality does not come out of a 'conspiracy against Islam', the Telegraph is right enough there. Muslim governments and movements which serve US/UK purposes are supported, not attacked. It is disobedience, not Islam, that is the enemy.

But the Telegraph itself is a pedlar of delusion in claiming that Britain and the United States are not carrying out atrocities where Muslims are the victims (in Iraq for example), or that Britain and the United States do not support or turn a blind eye to atrocities by other governments where Muslims are the victims.

EDITORIALS - TIMES

EXCUSES AND REASONS

The Times also takes on the arguments offered by Khan and al-Zawahiri in the al-Qaeda video, in an editorial entitled, 'The missing link: Iraq was an alibi, not the catalyst, for the London bombings'. How can it be determined that the war on Iraq was an 'alibi' as opposed to the 'catalyst' for the 7/7 bombings? The argument wriggles around quite a bit:

'As Tony Blair often observes, al-Qaeda and its affiliates are not a recent creation and have been content to draw on whatever alibis and excuses appeared convenient: if not Iraq, then Afghanistan; if not Afghanistan, then Israel and the Palestinians; if not that, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia; and if not that, the power of the House of Saud there, or the situation in the Balkans in the 1990s, or the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after 1918, or — if all else fails — the expulsion of the Moors from Spain in the 15th century. Al-Qaeda is a movement with a long and a twisted memory.'

Firstly, the fact that al-Qaeda draws on a number of grievances does not in itself prove that the invocation of these grievances is not genuine. The number of grievances does by itself make them insincere.

Secondly, there is deliberate blurring of different kinds of grievances here. It is of course true that the al-Qaeda leadership refers to humiliations and triumphs throughout Muslim history. The core grievances that drive the al-Qaeda insurgency, however, are quite tightly focussed, as has been pointed out by Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit (1996-1999). They do not include the termination of the Caliphate or the expulsion of Muslims in the 15th century.

Thirdly, it is not hard to establish that there is genuine anger - even hatred - in the Muslim community, in Britain and abroad, over Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. This is conceded in the leaked Home Office/Foreign Office report, Young Muslims and Extremism.

The global Jewish community is still (rightly) filled with enormous anger about the Holocaust. If someone said that the wholehearted support given by much of the Jewish diaspora for the policies of the Israeli government used the Holocaust as an 'alibi', they would rightly be regarded as anti-semitic.

The anger is real, the concern is real. The actions based on that anger and concern may be legitimate or they may not, but the Holocaust is known to be a motive for those actions, not an 'excuse'.

IN THE LAND OF TWO RIVERS

The Times continues:

'What Mr Blair is far more reluctant to say to his critics, though, but might, is “So what?” Accept for one minute that Osama bin Laden and his ilk exist only to avenge the loss of Saddam Hussein.'

More dishonesty here. Anyone who cares to inquire for a few minutes knows that bin Laden and al-Qaeda hated Saddam Hussein, and bin Laden urged his supporters to join the defence of Iraq against invasion despite Saddam, not because of him. Anyone who cares to inquire for a few minutes knows that al-Qaeda has no interest in 'avenging the loss of Saddam Hussein'.

The purpose of al-Qaeda activity in Iraq is firstly to drive out the occupiers, and secondly to establish a fundamentalist regime, a new base like Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein, whose departure is a relief to bin Laden and his followers.

' Is it really the contention of Mr Clarke, a man offering himself as a potential prime minister, that the decision on whether or not to liberate the long-oppressed population of Iraq or to promote the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be subject to a veto by those willing to place bombs on the London transport network? No foreign policy under a British government of whatever party political stripe should be conducted on that basis.'

Once again, a lot of distortion packed into a small space. Was the decision to invade Iraq a decision on 'whether or not to liberate the long-oppressed population of Iraq'? If so, why were the views of the Iraqi democratic opposition in exile so comprehensively ignored in the run-up to the war? Why, when they asked for training, arms and air support for an attempt to liberate their country themselves, were they dismissed in favour of a US-UK invasion?

If the goal was liberation, why throughout the run-up to the war did the US and Britain seek a military coup in Iraq to replace Saddam (see Regime Unchanged by Milan Rai)?

If the goal was liberation, why did George W. Bush's 17 March 2003 ultimatum offer peace in return for the departure of just three men from Iraq (Saddam Hussein and his two sons)?

Was the war designed to 'promote the spread of democracy in the Middle East'? If so, why did neither George W. Bush nor Tony Blair promise that following the war there would be free elections in Iraq? Why, after Iraq was 'liberated' did neither George W. Bush nor Tony Blair accept the holding of free multiparty elections until forced to by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani?

Finally, the 'veto' raises its head again. The point is not that British foreign policy should be subjected to a veto by people who set off bombs (though it seems that bombers based in Washington are allowed to have a decisive say in British foreign policy).

The point is that the Government is trying to deny that the ongoing war in Iraq has the consequence of making terrorism in Britain more likely. If this point was conceded, then the pressure to reverse the occupation, which is wrong in itself, would mount inexorably.

The Times has some fanciful distortions about the strength/existence of al-Qaeda in Saddam's Iraq, concluding:

'The spread of such dangerous ideas even under dictatorship illustrates the scale of the challenge that faces the democratic world and the fantasy that nations such as Britain can avoid confrontation with it.'

Britain does not have to fear these kinds of 'dangerous ideas'. It has to fear dangerous men who are driven to desperation and irrationality by the realities of British foreign policy. The people of Britain have to fear the world that Britain is helping to build, out of the bodies of the innocent.

The people of Britain have to fear those who spread fantasies of inevitable conflict, and who deny that doing the right thing can help to create security for all.

EDITORIALS - GUARDIAN / INDEPENDENT

The Guardian, with its editorial 'Video nasty', and the Independent, in 'How Iraq has cast its shadow over a disastrous week', both glide over the admission that the war in Iraq is a cause of terrorism in Britain.

The Independent remarks weakly,

'The Government's argument that there is no link between the two events - and that Britain would have been targeted anyway - is looking increasingly forlorn.'

Well, that told them.

The Guardian is only slightly more forthright:

'One of the most unhelpful aspects of government's response since the London bombings is the stubborn refusal of Tony Blair, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, to acknowledge there is any connection between the attacks and the war. As Ken Clarke said on Thursday, he must be the only person left in Britain who thinks that. (Mr Clarke was speaking before the Khan video emerged.)'

'When even the bomber himself says he was motivated by actions abroad, it is perverse for the government to continue to deny this.'

'Before the war and since, British intelligence and even the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Michael Jay, were warning of the impact of Iraq on British Muslims. The war has been a distraction from the real confrontation: both George Bush and Blair should have kept their focus on the fight against al-Qaida after September 11.'

'It is right that the government takes a hard look at the alienation of parts of the Muslim community in Britain, even if there is more than an element of panic about some of the proposed legislation. However, the government also has to take a hard look at its own position. If it wants its message to be listened to by British Muslims, it must first establish credibility and it is very hard to do that while denying the blindingly obvious. Iraq cannot be a justification for the London bombings - but Mr Blair should stop pretending it is not a factor.'

This is not the strongest language ever seen. The Government is being 'unhelpful' and 'perverse' in 'pretending' that Iraq is not a 'factor' in the London bombings. It is not lying or deliberately putting the people of Britain at risk of greater and greater atrocities.

Iraq was a 'distraction'. Not a crime, a 'distraction'.

The logical conclusion to the admission that Iraq and Afghanistan are undermining national security in Britain is that, if at all possible, Britain should withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. If there are moral or other obstacles to that process, they should be fully debated.

This is not the conclusion reached in either editorial.

After the Khan video, some kind of response was unavoidable. But all four newspapers have positioned themselves for the next stage, when the video gradually fades out of memory, probably existing only in terms of the (double-edged) evidence it gives of connections between the 7/7 bombers and the al-Qaeda core. The plain words delivered by Khan and al-Zawahiri are already barely visible.

ATROCITIES IN IRAQ

OTHER ATROCITIES

The Telegraph writes, 'we are not responsible for atrocities against Muslims, and we did not bring terrorist attacks on ourselves.'

After careful investigation, Human Rights Watch confirmed the deaths of twenty civilians in Baghdad between 1 May and 30 September 2003 in 'questionable circumstances':

'The individual cases of civilian deaths documented in this report reveal a pattern by U.S. forces of over-aggressive tactics, indiscriminate shooting in residential areas and a quick reliance on lethal force. In some cases, U.S. forces faced a real threat, which gave them the right to respond with force. But that response was sometimes disproportionate to the threat or inadequately targeted, thereby harming civilians or putting them at risk.'

'In Baghdad, civilian deaths can be categorized in three basic incident groups. First are deaths that occur during U.S. military raids on homes in search of arms or resistance fighters... When U.S. soldiers encountered armed resistance from families who thought they were acting in self-defense against thieves, they sometimes resorted to overwhelming force, killing family members, neighbors or passers-by.'

'Second are civilian deaths caused by U.S. soldiers who responded disproportionately and indiscriminately after they have come under attack at checkpoints or on the road. Human Rights Watch documented cases where, after an improvised explosive device detonated near a U.S. convoy, soldiers fired high caliber weapons in multiple directions, injuring and killing civilians who were nearby.'

'Third are killings at checkpoints when Iraqi civilians failed to stop. U.S. checkpoints constantly shift throughout Baghdad, and are sometimes not well marked, although sign visibility is improving. A dearth of Arabic interpreters and poor understanding of Iraqi hand gestures cause confusion, with results that are sometimes fatal for civilians. Soldiers sometimes shout conflicting instructions in English with their guns raised: “Stay in the car!” or “Get out of the car!” '

There is also the use of cluster bombs in the invasion. Another Human Rights Watch report observes:

'The widespread use of cluster munitions, especially by U.S. and U.K. ground forces, caused at least hundreds of civilian casualties. Cluster munitions, which are large weapons containing dozens or hundreds of submunitions, endanger civilians because of their broad dispersal, or “footprint,” and the high number of submunitions that do not explode on impact [meaning that they can continue to kill civilians long after the battle, or the entire conflict, is over].'

'U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) reported that it used 10,782 cluster munitions, which could contain at least 1.8 million submunitions [bombs]. The British used an additional seventy air-launched and 2,100 ground-launched cluster munitions, containing 113,190 submunitions.'

'Although cluster munition strikes are particularly dangerous in populated areas, U.S. and U.K. ground forces repeatedly used these weapons in attacks on Iraqi positions in residential neighborhoods. Coalition air forces also caused civilian casualties by their use of cluster munitions, but to a much lesser degree.'

These were policies adopted despite the foreseeable consequences for large numbers of civilians.

Does anything need to be said at this point about Abu Graib?

JNV welcomes feedback.