A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **

News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ The.Supplement
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours || of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF | How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
{Info on A-Infos}

(en) Ireland, Working Class Resistance #10 - London Bombing: Why Didn’t they Bomb Sweden?

Date Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:14:50 +0200

The planting of bombs on tubes and buses in London amounts to
nothing more than an attack on working class people going about their
daily lives. In the immediate wake of the July 7th bombings Organise!
joined with other 'social anarchists and libertarian
communists' in expressing "deepest sympathy to anyone
affected by the blasts"? and in condemning "the use of violence
against ordinary people and the perpetrators of the bombings"?.
While it was pretty obviously planned to 'embarrass' the
British government at a time when the G8 heads of state were meeting
in Gleneagles it was working class people who paid with their lives.
With the government denying any connection to the occupation of
Iraq, instead insisting that these attacks are part of an assault on our
way of life, Al from the Armagh/Down Local of Organise! Repeats the
question: 'Why Didn't They Bomb Sweden?

It might seem strange on the face of it but really it is a good question.
Sweden is a 'democracy' too, after all. With Britain, and other
states in the elite West, it shares, Blair would agree, certain
fundamental 'values' which it too 'holds dear', which
it too wishes to protect from the jealous terrorist. And what are these
values? A cricketing sense of decency and fair-play; freedom of speech
(and trade of course!), democracy and obedience to the rule of law,
progress, development"¦ and so it goes on. Everything, in fact,
which the terrorist loathes, envies and wishes to replace with a version
of an Islamic state more oppressive and dangerous than the religion
itself (this is not to say that the other monotheistic codes are any less
ridiculous or oppressive). If only life were as simple as a Rupert
Murdoch headline!

But let me be clear. Of course, the bomb attacks were barbaric"¦any
loss of innocent life is. But for Tony Blair to have the audacity to deny
the rather patent link between the war in Iraq (military and economic
warfare that has been ongoing since 1991 and which has led to
hundreds of thousands of deaths"¦.sorry, 'collateral damage'
"“ and in which no Swedish military involvement occurred!) and
the London attacks of July 7th, and those since, is one of the most
astonishing pieces of double-think recorded beyond the pages of
Orwell. On June 10th, he said:
"September 11 happened before Iraq, before Afghanistan, before any
of these issues and that was the worst terrorist atrocity of all." (Robert
Winnett and David Leppard, The Sunday Times, op. cit.)
And how about this? A 2004 joint Home Office and Foreign Office
dossier prepared for Tony Blair (!)- 'Young Muslims and Extremism' -
identified the Iraq war as a key cause of young Britons turning to
terrorism. The analysis stated:
"It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment
among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived 'double
standard' in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular
Britain and the US."?
The very possibility that Al Qaeda are trying to get public opinion to
force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United
States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East
seems too risible to be given serious merit, apparently.
But, two and two makes five, and the 1991 Iraqi war and subsequent
sanctions have been casually wiped off the slate of history. September
11th marked the beginning of the War on Terror which the US and its
trusted lackey, Britain, were coerced into declaring, irrespective, it
seems, of anything that had happened before. So much for Eric
Hoskins, a Canadian doctor and co-ordinator of a Harvard study team,
who reported in January 1992 that the allied bombardment "effectively
terminated everything vital to human survival in Iraq - electricity,
water, sewage systems, agriculture, industry and health care".
(Hoskins, 'Killing is killing - not kindness,' New Statesman, January
17, 1992)
None of this was 'terror', obviously. Genocide is not terror, if
the maniacs are on the side of freedom"¦
Media consent
The Daily Blair, of course, rushed to fulminate on the horrors of July
7th and rightly so, but what of the past ten years? What of the recent
past? What actually is happening in Iraq now? For a rare piece of
"The American army's use of its massive fire-power is so unrestrained
that all US military operations are in reality the collective punishment
of whole districts, towns and cities. Mass arrests of young men may
eliminate a few insurgent fighters, but they ensure that plenty of
recruits will take their places." (Cockburn, 'We must avoid the terrorist
trap,' The Independent, July 11, 2005)
Hospital staff have been attacked by US marines, doctors have been
shot, emergency medicines blocked. Children have been murdered in
front of their families. Atrocities less worse that events in London?
But this was Britain's first taste of suicide bombers, hooted the
tabloids. This kind of thing is surely the preserve of those countries
affected by the never-ending saga of Middle Eastern politics. Lest we
forget, however, before March 2003, there had also never been a
suicide bomb attack in Iraq. Now the roll-call of dead is reaching
alarming proportions. Consider these five days in July"¦ On July 11,
a suicide bomber blew himself up in a line of recruits at an Iraqi army
recruitment centre in western Baghdad, killing 25 people and
wounding 47. On July 12, four civilians died in Kirkuk when a suicide
car bomb exploded near the city's hospital and municipal
headquarters. Several of the wounded were hospital employees. On
July 13, 26 Iraqi children were killed by a suicide bombing in
Baghdad. On July 14, two suicide bombs in Baghdad killed two
policemen. On July 15, 10 suicide bombs exploded across Baghdad.
On July 16, a bomb killed at least 98 people in Musayyib, south of
Baghdad. The Associated Press estimates close to 2,000 Iraqis have
died since the Iraqi 'government' was formed on April 28.
Naturally enough, the British media dances to its own tune. The
Madrid attacks of March 12, 2004, where 191 people were killed and
1,800 injured by ten bombs placed on trains at the height of rush hour
were wildly condemned. The link between the attacks and the
presence of Spanish troops in Iraq was eventually made (after some
Spanish government mind games with ETA) and a Guardian editorial
"Many voters expressed anger against the ruling Popular party: first
for making Spain a target for Islamist extremists by its support for the
Iraq war; and second for rushing too quickly to accuse the armed
Basque separatist group ETA of the bombing." (Leader, 'Europe
responds,' The Guardian, March 15, 2004)
Unlike now, of course, where any voice rationalising on the reasons
for the London attacks is roundly chastised as unpatriotic,
'vile' (the Sun), shameful apologetics for terror. As for
Christopher Hitchens (author on that not very complimentary work on
Henry Kissinger) writing in the Mirror:
"How can anyone bear to be so wicked and stupid? How can anyone
bear to act as a megaphone for psychotic killers?" (Hitchens, '07/07:
War on Britain: we cannot surrender,' The Mirror, July 8, 2005)
What remains remarkable is the complete unwillingness for Blair and
co. to appreciate the fact that perhaps, just perhaps, the enemy in their
great Jihad against Terror (though how you fight an abstract is beyond
me) may just be willing to strike back. He was warned by the Joint
Intelligence Committee that "by far the greatest terrorist threat" to this
country would be "heightened by military action against Iraq". He
ignored 79 per cent of Londoners who, according to a YouGov survey
in February 2003, believed that a British attack on Iraq "would make a
terrorist attack on London more likely". A month ago, a leaked,
classified CIA report revealed that the invasion had turned Iraq into a
focal point of terrorism. Before the invasion, said the CIA, Iraq
"exported no terrorist threat to its neighbours" because Saddam
Hussein was "implacably hostile to al-Qaeda".
So, obviously, Blair is very stupid, or doesn't care about the
dangers of his foreign policy for domestic life? Either way, stiff upper
lips everyone, or else move to Sweden!
A-infos-en mailing list

A-Infos Information Center