|
The London Blasts: Media Review
DAY 100: Saturday
15 October 2005
One Hundred Days Since 7/7
ONE HUNDRED DAYS OF DENIAL
THE BIG QUESTION
There had been British Muslims
who have fought for al-Qaeda before, and there had been British
Muslims who have carried out, or attempted to carry out, suicide
bombings before. But Thursday 7 July was the first suicide bombing
in Britain itself - 'suicide bombing' in its modern sense of the
indiscriminate killing of civilians by a terrorist willing to
kill herself or himself in the act of destruction.
The four suicide terrorist attacks
were followed by four more attempted attacks on 21 July. All the
indications are that there will be further al-Qaeda atrocities,
perhaps even more serious in their severity, unless some solution
is found. Given that the 7/7 bombers had almost no history which
could have been used by the security services to detect them before
their mission took place, the 'solution' is unlikely to be a purely
police or intelligence affair.
The burning question of our
time, then, is how Britain as a society can prevent more people
deciding to become suicide bombers. Given the nature of the crime,
no penalty is going to dissuade a potential bomber. There is going
to have to be some other solution if the risk is to be successfully
reduced.
What we need to know is how
and why someone comes to decide to carry out such an appalling
act. Only then can we attempt to find a set of measures that will
reduce the chances of such decisions being made in the future.
BRAINWASHING AND REALITY
The most common, and in a sense
comforting, explanation is that the bombers have been 'brainwashed'
by al-Qaeda masterminds into carrying out evil acts foreign to
their true natures. For the family of a suicide bomber, this protects
the memory of the core of the person who they still love and respect.
For society, matters are simplified: find the "preachers
of hatred" and stop them from doing what they are doing.
For Government, this "explanation" shifts attention
conveniently from the realities of British foreign policy to the
evils of al-Qaeda manipulation.
Because the problem we are confronting
is not the web of fabrications and distortions peddled by al-Qaeda,
noxious though that is. The problem we are confronting is not
the lies that al-Qaeda tells, but the truths that it tells.
The problem we are faced with
is that it is not, at root, distortion
of reality that lies at the root of the al-Qaeda insurgency, but
reality, the reality of Britain's role in the world.
THE BOMBERS THEMSELVES
What do we know about the 7/7
bombers? That, according to one friend of theirs, the roots of
the plot lie in long sessions they held together watching videos
of anti-Muslim atrocities, and armed Muslim resistance, around
the world. (Media
Review, 17 July)
That the first, and most plausible,
statement of responsibility describes the bombings as revenge
for British participation in massacres in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(Media Review, 8 July)
That the man identified as the lead bomber left behind a video
in which he explained his motivation as defence of Muslims around
the world suffering at the hands of British foreign policy. (Media
Review, 2 September)
What do we know about the 21/7
bombers? That they engaged in just the same kinds of video watching
sessions:
'One of the men accused of
taking part in the failed terror attacks in London on 21 July
has claimed the bomb plot was directly inspired by Britain's
involvement in the Iraq war. In a remarkable insight into the
motives behind the alleged would-be bombers, Hussain Osman,
arrested in Rome on Friday, has revealed how the suspects watched
hours of TV footage showing grief-stricken Iraqi widows and
children alongside images of civilians killed in the conflict.
He is alleged to have told prosecutors that after watching the
footage: "There was a feeling of hatred and a conviction
that it was necessary to give a signal - to do something."
'
' "Religion
had nothing to do with this. We watched films. We were
shown videos with images of the war in Iraq. We were told we
must do something big. That’s why we met," he said.'
(Media
Review, 31 July)
REALISM AND DENIAL
After the bombings, Tony Blair
appointed certain Muslim 'leaders' to report back on measures
to prevent future atrocities. The Muslim taskforce came back with
recommendations he has done his best to erase from the record.
The central recommendation was for a Royal Commission inquiry
into the July bombings.
The seven taskforce subgroups
(made up of Muslim MPs, peers, academics and community leaders)
'all feel that British foreign
policy, especially Mr Blair's support for the Iraq war,
has fuelled resentment.' They suggest that a Royal Commission
should proceed in two stages. The first being an examination of
the bombings themselves. The second being 'an exploration of wider
issues, such as the role of foreign
policy in radicalising the terrorists, and whether victims
of the bombings received speedy and adequate financial compensation
and support.' (Media
Review, 17 September)
The Government has stuck doggedly
to its line that the risk of terrorism has not been affected materially
by British foreign policy in general, or by the war in Iraq in
particular. This denial of the obvious has had great success with
the British media, but has signally failed to convince the public
at large, who remain entirely realistic about the national security
impact of the war in Iraq.
A CHRONOLOGY OF REALISM
07 July: First suicide bombings
in London. 52 people die, as well as the four bombers. A statement
from al-Qaeda claims revenge for massacres in Iraq and Afghanistan.
10 July: Sunday
Times publishes a joint Home Office/Foreign Office report
'Young Muslims and
Extremism', which identifies British foreign policy as a major
contributor to Muslim extremism in Britain.
18
July: The Chatham
House Report blames British participation in the "war
on terrorism", and the war in Iraq in particular, for the
failure to diminish the terrorist threat in Britain.
19
July: The Guardian
discovers that 64 per cent of Britons place at least some of the
responsibility for the London bombs on Tony Blair.
20 July: It is reported that British
intelligence warned in June 2005, weeks before the attack,
that Iraq provided 'motivation' and 'focus' for would-be terrorists
in Britain.
21 July: Second suicide bombings attempted
in London. No casualties.
24 July: The first sign of Government wavering
on the link to Iraq. Jack
Straw says: "It is impossible to say for certain"
whether the war in Iraq is putting Britain at greater risk of
terrorism.
25 July: The Daily
Mirror finds that 85 per cent of Britons think that the
war in Iraq was to some degree a cause of the July bombings. (We
didn't report this until 1
September.)
26 July: Tony
Blair shifts his position, saying of the war in Iraq: 'I can
see how these people use these issues to recruit people', but
still denying that the war has increased the risk.
28 July: MI5
website links Iraq to the threat of terrorism.
31 July: Hussain
Osman, a 21/7 bomber is reported in the British media to have
confessed that Iraq was a major motivation for the bombings.
5 August: Tony Blair announces new terror
laws - to distract attention from the link with Iraq, in
our view.
28 August: The Observer
publishes another part of the correspondence around the 'Young
Muslims and Extremism' Report, where Foreign Office permanent
under-secretary Michael Jay acknowledges the
central importance of British foreign policy in driving 'Muslim
extremism' in Britain.
1 September: Al-Jazeera broadcasts an al-Qaeda
video featuring Mohammed
Sidique Khan, believed to be the leader of the 7/7 cell, in
which he blames British foreign policy for the actions he is about
to undertake.
1 September: Ken Clarke, former Tory Chancellor
of the Exchequer, opens his bid for the leadership of the Conservative
Party with a speech on Iraq and terrorism, arguing that the war
in Iraq is making Britain less safe. (We didn't discuss this until
6 September.)
5 September: Former Tory health secretary
Stephen Dorrell and former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer
Norman Lamont support Ken Clarke's argument that the war in Iraq
is making Britain less safe.
14 September: Tony Blair's Muslim
taskforce reports back, asking for a Royal Commission into
the 7/7 bombings, and blaming British foreign policy.
27 September. The FT
publishes a poll of British businesses taken in June, before the
bombings, which found that 83 per cent of respondents felt the
war with Iraq had increased the terrorist threat.
30 September: A poll of the capital by the
Greater London Authority finds that only 8
per cent of Londoners believe there was no connection between
the war in Iraq and the July bombings.
ONE HUNDRED DAYS
During the last 100 days, we have seen enormous
tragedies in Pakistan and in the United States. In both cases,
the events themselves could not have been averted, but the human
cost could have been reduced with properly organised and funded
action before and after disaster struck.
In the case of al-Qaeda-type terrorism, it
is not merely a matter of preparing to cope with the aftermath.
It is insufficient to rely on the police and security services
to detect and prevent 7/7-type conspiracies, which require virtually
no funds, few recruits, and no observable suspicious behaviour.
We must try to prevent the hurricane and
the earthquake.
During the last 100 days, we have seen an
extraordinary sequence of atrocities and human-engineered disasters
in Iraq. While not all of these attacks have been aimed at the
occupation forces and their Iraqi proxies, it is difficult to
deny that the level of rage in Iraq would be much less if the
US and British forces were withdrawn and replaced by neutral troops
working under
the UN mandate.
Withdrawal of British and US forces from
Iraq and Afghanistan would have beneficial effects for the peoples
of these countries, and would also benefit national security at
home.
Doing the right thing also makes us safer.
If we persist in doing the wrong thing, who
is to say what will happen in the next 100 days?
JNV welcomes feedback
This
page last updated 15 October 200
|