"Shock and Awe" in London

"Shock and Awe" in London
By Yamin Zakaria, July 08, 2005

http://www.icssa.org/london.html

"God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war ... We've
committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world." (Martin
Luther King, Jr.)

First, it ("Shock and Awe") was displayed in Baghdad, and in response it
was seen in Madrid and Istanbul; now it has come to London but on a far
smaller scale. It seems we live in a world where the Anglo-Saxon
civilisation, assumes the right to unleash their military forces on
anyone, but expects everyone to howl terrorism, give minutes of silence,
and stand shoulder-to-shoulder, when they face retaliation.

As expected everyone is howling and describing it as barbaric, an act of
terrorism, attack on humanity etc. because the bombs were detonated in
London not in Baghdad or Kabul! Otherwise I would have expected the same
response for the 54 people killed in the wedding party in Iraq and many
similar incidences throughout Iraq and Afghanistan by trigger happy US
pilots and soldiers.

The US could not identify a wedding party of men, women and children
despite being equipped with most sophisticated equipment and training.
So, they are either trained monkeys short of brain cells or they were
high on alcohol and drugs prior to engaging in combat missions, or they
are terrorists that deliberately killed civilians. The latter is more
likely, given that they have been following a policy of shoot first and
ask questions later, so they bombed the civilians from a high altitude,
then apologised for their 'mistake'. That gets packaged and marketed by
the media terrorists as collateral damage, a small price for the war on
terror.

Blair and Bush referred to their noble work of discussing how to relieve
poverty in the G8 summit (as if the West had no role in causing the
poverty in the first place) contrasting that with the acts of the
terrorists in London. Hence, Bush and Blair, both absolutely blameless,
poor innocent victims! The G8 summit is actually facilitating the new
scramble for Africa, lets face it, Capitalism and altruism does not mix
together, they are opposites.

They (Bush and Blair) portray the attacks in London without any cause what
so ever. Examining the 'cause' is an uncomfortable topic; it can be
self-incriminating. A way to deflect discussing the ‘cause’ is to say
that examining the cause gives some sort of justification to the
attackers. Well, do we not need to understand and debate their grievances
even if we do not agree with their action?

What is even more perplexing, is that the 'man' who is leading the war on
terror from the rear or from his bunkers, George Bush, says: "The war on
terror goes on" as if this incident is justification for the war waged in
Iraq and Afghanistan. But, the problem is, the incident happened well
after the war was waged. So, this is a bit like prodding someone with a
knife and then when that person retaliates in self-defence that becomes
the reason for the initial prodding.

If anything, the incident in London is the product of the initial
aggressions in Iraq and Afghanistan; and rationally it cannot be its
cause. Quite often terrorism and state terrorism depict the same cause
and effect relationship; state terrorism is usually the cause, terrorism
is the effect. Recognising this would go a long way towards brining peace
and resolving the conflict.

An example of this cause and effect is the attack in Madrid. Spain was
only attacked (terrorism as effect) when it attacked (state terrorism as
cause) Iraq without any provocation in the first place. Iraqis did not
harm the Spanish, the English or the Americans. When Spain withdrew, no
further attack to date has taken place and it is unlikely to happen in
the future unless there is a genuine reason once again.

Who did it?

Now the basic question, who did it and why? Of course once you know who
then why becomes self-evident.

It could have been the IRA but this does not carry the hallmark the IRA
and they have been dormant for a while. The splinter group, the real IRA,
do not have the logistical ability to carry out such attacks and since the
Omagh bombing have self censured and been muted.

Theoretically, some may point to extreme French nationalists as the likely
suspect for loosing the Olympic bid and seeing the Brits recently gloating
by celebrating the battle of Trafalgar, not to mention reviving the old
wounds of history from Agincourt to Waterloo. But this is unlikely. As
Europe has learnt from the two world wars, the price of war can be heavy.
Agreed, many might even find this point amusing.

Many of the sceptics, war opponents and many Muslims may point to the CIA
and/or Mossad as the likely parties, for carrying out such an operation
for various reasons; to discredit their domestic opponents; justify
prolonging their aggression upon the Muslims; building a climate to
attack Iran, hence we may expect other attacks of the sorts.

The most likely suspects, as already pointed out by the media, are the
Muslims – Why because they have reasons to retaliate. The reason is often
not elaborated upon, usually hidden behind the labels of "terrorism" and
"extremism". Anyway, the Al-Qaeda network comes to everyone’s lips. But
nobody is prepared to utter that it could have been carried out by the
relatives of those who perished in Fallujah, Ramadi, Anbar, etc. Let us
not forget Hilla, where the British forces deliberately dropped cluster
bombs on a civilian town maiming many, where there were no Iraqi or
resistance forces present even before the war.

Why this was was done (motive)?

Blair referred to the "terrorists" wanting to destroy their way of life.
If that is the case, then why have they chosen to attack after all this
time? What is the motivation for wanting to destroy your way of life? How
does it benefit them? Is Blair suggesting that they are mindless serial
killers like those walking the streets of America, just looking for
victims! Hence, Blair is a Bliar, by his own words!

If it was an act of retaliation from the Muslims, then the reasons are
obvious. It is partly vengeance and partly to make the citizens of the
West feel the reality of what their governments are doing in Iraq daily,
so that they might get up and do something about it. Like the Spaniards
did to Aznar. Whatever the case, it has nothing to do with British way of
life; all the Iraqis are interested in is freedom from occupation and
justice for the crimes committed against them. Even Al-Qaeda did not
demand from the US and UK to dismantle their way of life only that they
want to see their lands free of occupation and oppression.

Condemn or Condone?

To exclusively condemn this atrocity in London in isolation to everything
else, is to condone the real and bigger criminals (Bush and Blair)
sitting inside the G8 summit! For diplomatic protocol and niceties all
the G8 members stood shoulder to shoulder. The Muslims moderates as usual
cannot do anything else but to follow their masters or do what is
fashionable and acceptable. However, where was that voice speaking out
for the unprovoked aggression in Iraq, that has taken the lives of
100,000 plus to date, which, if balance were sought, would take around
2000 more incidents of the kind that took place in London?

If killing innocent people is wrong and heinous for the "terrorists" then
surely it is also wrong for these governments to do exactly that, in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Which is worse killing innocent civilians without
provocation or killing them in retaliation? Surely the former
(aggression) is worse than the latter (revenge).

So condemn not the bombers first (terrorism as effect), but Blair who is
the cause (state terrorism as cause). I work and live in London, if I
fell victim to the acts of retaliation, I would put all the blame
squarely on those who have caused this retaliation. After the initial
rage diminishes hopefully everyone would see this point of view. Prior to
the war like Madrid, London was never a target, nor was it ever targeted
by the Muslims assuming they were behind it in the first place. You can
be sure that when the British troops are eventually withdrawn the
probabilities of another attack will decline but unlike Madrid it will
not disappear as Britain has played a greater role in the war. This is
why both Muslims and Non Muslims in the UK ought to reflect about the
incident in its totality. The remedy should be sought by:

a) Calling for the removal of the British troops from Iraq.

b) Impeaching Blair and preferably handing him over to the
International Criminal Court to be tried for his war crimes.

c) Denounce the US and its Ziono-fascist and the neo-cons, who are the
real architects behind the war.

d) Encourage US to remove its troops or isolate US as a rogue state. If
necessary, Britain along with Europe should be looking to build stronger
ties with Europe, china, Russia and the Islamic world, looking for its
long term future interests instead of short term benefits from the US.

e) Assess war compensation to Iraq, repaying this debt by helping the
Iraqis to rebuild their society.

f) Denouncing state terrorism as well as terrorism of the individuals
and groups. Recognise that state terrorism is usually the father of
terrorism!

----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my