London Mayor Blames Middle East Policy

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Hard to argue anything different.

------------------------------------------
Decades of British and American intervention in the oil-rich Middle East motivated the London bombers, Ken Livingstone has suggested.

The London mayor told BBC News he had no sympathy with the bombers and he opposed all violence.

But he argued that the attacks would not have happened had Western powers left Arab nations free to decide their own affairs after World War I.

Instead, they had often supported unsavoury governments in the region.
Mr Livingstone was asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme what he thought had motivated the bombers.

He replied: "I think you've just had 80 years of western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the western need for oil.

"We've propped up unsavoury governments, we've overthrown ones we didn't consider sympathetic.

"And I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s... the Americans recruited and trained Osama Bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians and drive them out of Afghanistan.

"They didn't give any thought to the fact that once he'd done that he might turn on his creators."

No justice?

Mr Livingstone said Western governments had been so terrified of losing their fuel supplies that they had kept intervening in the Middle East.

He argued: "If at the end of the First World War we had done what we promised the Arabs, which was to let them be free and have their own governments, and kept out of Arab affairs, and just bought their oil, rather than feeling we had to control the flow of oil, I suspect this wouldn't have arisen."
(<a href="http://tinyurl.com/csbtc">CONTINUED</a>)

[RaiderH8r]

Christopher Hitchens wrote this just after the attacks. He's an author and writes for Vanity Fair.

The Anticipated Attack
Don't blame Iraq for the bombings.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Thursday, July 7, 2005, at 10:39 AM PT

My son flew in from London at the weekend, and we were discussing, as we have several times before, why it hadn't happened yet. "It" was the jihadist attack on the city, for which the British security forces have been braced ever since the bombings in Madrid. When the telephone rang in the small hours of this morning, I was pretty sure it was the call I had been waiting for. And as I snapped on the TV I could see, from the drawn expression and halting speech of Tony Blair, that he was reacting not so much with shock as from a sense of inevitability.
Perhaps this partly explains the stoicism and insouciance of those Brits interviewed on the streets, all of whom seemed to know that a certain sang-froid was expected of them. The concrete barriers around the Houses of Parliament have been up for some time. There are estimated to be over 4 million surveillance cameras in the United Kingdom today, but of course it had to be the Underground—"the tube"—and the good old symbolic red London bus. Timed for the rush hour, and at transit stations that serve outlying and East London neighborhoods, the bombs are nearly certain to have killed a number of British Muslims. None of this, of course, has stopped George Galloway and his ilk from rushing to the microphone and demanding that the British people be removed "from harm's way" by an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. (Since the Islamists also demand a withdrawal from Afghanistan, it surprises me that he doesn't oblige them in this way as well, but perhaps that will come in time.)

Looking for possible timings or pretexts, one of course comes up against the meeting of the G8 powers in Edinburgh and perhaps the imminent British spot in the rotating chair of the European Union. (It can't have been the Olympic announcement on such short notice, but the contrast with the happy, multiethnic crowds in Trafalgar Square yesterday could hardly be starker, and it certainly wasn't enough to get the murderers to call it off.) Another possibility is the impending trial of Abu Hamza al Mazri, a one-eyed and hook-handed mullah who isn't as nice as he looks and who preaches Bin-Ladenism from a shabby mosque in North London. He is currently awaiting extradition to the United States, and his supporters might have wanted to make a loving gesture in his favor.

(cont.)

[RaiderH8r]

This would mean that the cell or gang was homegrown, rather than smuggled in from North Africa or elsewhere. Or it could mean coordination between the two. In any event, there are two considerations here. The first is Britain's role as a leading member of the "Coalition" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The second is its role as a host to a large and growing Muslim minority. The first British citizens to be killed in Afghanistan were fighting for the Taliban, which is proof in itself that the Iraq war is not the original motivating force. Last year, two British Muslims pulled off a suicide attack at an Israeli beach resort. In many British cities, there are now demands for sexual segregation in schools and for separate sharia courts to try Muslim defendants. The electoral strength of Muslims is great enough to encourage pandering from all three parties: The most egregious pandering of all has come from Blair himself, who has introduced a bill that would criminalize incitement to hatred on the ground of religion.* (http://slate.msn.com/id/2122186#correct)

During the last election the Conservatives, who have chosen to go soft on the Iraq war, mutated their lost hawkishness into a campaign against "illegal immigrants" and "bogus asylum seekers"—easy code words for an enemy within. So, there is another form of pandering at work as well. In the main, though, London is a highly successful and thriving melting pot, and I would be very much surprised as well as appalled if there were any vengeance pursued against individual Muslims or mosques.

Older Londoners are of course raised on memories of the Nazi blitzkrieg, and a younger generation remembers living through a long campaign of bombings by the Provisional IRA. This latest challenge is far more insidious, however, because the ambitions of the killers are non-negotiable, and because their methods so exactly match their aims. It will be easy in the short term for Blair to rally national and international support, as always happens in moments such as this, but over time these gestural moments lose their force and become subject to diminishing returns. If, as one must suspect, these bombs are only the first, then Britain will start to undergo the same tensions—between a retreat to insularity and clannishness of the sort recently seen in France and Holland, and the self-segregation of the Muslim minority in both those countries—that will start to infect other European countries as well. It is ludicrous to try and reduce this to Iraq. Europe is steadily becoming a part of the civil war that is roiling the Islamic world, and it will require all our cultural ingenuity to ensure that the criminals who shattered London's peace at rush hour this morning are not the ones who dictate the pace and rhythm of events from now on.

Correction, July 8, 2005: This piece originally and incorrectly claimed that Prime Minister Tony Blair had promised legislation that would outlaw speech that could be construed as offensive to Islam and that this represented an extension of Britain's blasphemy law. The government has introduced a bill that would criminalize incitement to hatred on the grounds of religion; this is an extension of a law that prohibits incitement to hatred on racial grounds and is unrelated to Britain's blasphemy law.

[Rohirrim]

I still say (unless I learn differently) that the U.S. has spent the last 100 years cleaning up after European imperialism in SE Asia, Africa, the Middle East, etc. Everywhere we've sent troops has been a response to some mess the Europeans instigated, then abandoned. Like Washington said in his farewell address, "Beware foreign entanglements." He was referring directly to Europe.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"I think you've just had 80 years of western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the western need for oil.

"We've propped up unsavoury governments, we've overthrown ones we didn't consider sympathetic.

"And I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s... the Americans recruited and trained Osama Bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians and drive them out of Afghanistan.

"They didn't give any thought to the fact that once he'd done that he might turn on his creators."

Hammer, nail, head.

Speaking of "propping up unsavory governments," I wonder what the Bush crime family is going to do when their old pal Saddam starts singing about his once-chummy relationship with the CIA, Saint Ron, Poppy, and Rummy?

Wonder if he'll remind them that the only real WMD he ever had was supplied by them?

In any event, my guess is we won't be seeing Michael Jackson/Scott Peterson-level coverage of that trial. :D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

He argued: "If at the end of the First World War we had done what we promised the Arabs, which was to let them be free and have their own governments, and kept out of Arab affairs, and just bought their oil, rather than feeling we had to control the flow of oil, I suspect this wouldn't have arisen."

Amen!

This guy gets it!

[RaiderH8r]

Amen!

This guy gets it!
I wonder what he would have done with Israel? Any activity to support or even recognize the state of Israel is enough to send the jihadists on another bombing rampage.

[Spider]

Staying out of Middle east affairs ?
well they didnt want us on the sidelines When Russia marched into Afghanistan , Saudi and Kuwait didnt want us on the sidelines when Saddam invaded Kuwait .....
Iran was all too willing to accept our Help during that Big quake a few years back .....
Muslims sure did welcome our Help in Bosnia .......
Palistine has been wanting us to step in on their side with Israel , and Israel has done the same ....
And they all have had their hands out for our aid for many decades .......
But now they want selected US involvment , they want us to give , then go away ....
If the Middle East was serious about the US staying out of their affairs , they should have said Thanks , but no thanks when they needed help ........

[RaiderH8r]

Staying out of Middle east affairs ?
well they didnt want us on the sidelines When Russia marched into Afghanistan , Saudi and Kuwait didnt want us on the sidelines when Saddam invaded Kuwait .....
Iran was all too willing to accept our Help during that Big quake a few years back .....
Muslims sure did welcome our Help in Bosnia .......
Palistine has been wanting us to step in on their side with Israel , and Israel has done the same ....
And they all have had their hands out for our aid for many decades .......
But now they want selected US involvment , they want us to give , then go away ....
If the Middle East was serious about the US staying out of their affairs , they should have said Thanks , but no thanks when they needed help ........
A little more direct than the route I was taking, but effectively stated none the less. The whole world has their hands out to the US and then effectively pisses in our boots. I'm alright with helping globally, but some consideration should be given by other countries to the methods, means, and system that affords the US such wealth and stature. We're not holding a monopoly on freedom and democracy people. But it's always been easier to ask for help than to get the work done yourself...at least for some.

[Spider]

A little more direct than the route I was taking, but effectively stated none the less. The whole world has their hands out to the US and then effectively pisses in our boots. I'm alright with helping globally, but some consideration should be given by other countries to the methods, means, and system that affords the US such wealth and stature. We're not holding a monopoly on freedom and democracy people. But it's always been easier to ask for help than to get the work done yourself...at least for some.
I would agree with that , I just inserted the Middle East , but the entire world has asked us for help ....... I still dont give Bush a free pass , all I am saying is it isnt all his fault ( that hurt to say .... must go shower now ;D )

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I wonder what he would have done with Israel?

He might have done the smart thing and said "no" to the whole idea in the first place.

[Spider]

Israel is the 800 pound Gorillia sitting on the couch no one wants to talk about .......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Israel is the 800 pound Gorillia sitting on the couch no one wants to talk about .......

With regard to the Israeli/Palestinian situation, Bush has done only two things in the last 4+ years:

1) Ignore it

or:

2) Pour gas on the flames

[Spider]

With regard to the Israeli/Palestinian situation, Bush has done only two things in the last 4+ years:

1) Ignore it

or:

2) Pour gas on the flames
I wouldnt have a problem with #2 if it got results though ...... I agree though the road map for peace was a joke

[RaiderH8r]

He might have done the smart thing and said "no" to the whole idea in the first place.
One of our stauchest allies and best friends in the world and you would have them go away. Nice. Perhaps we should have never intervened with Hitler's Final Solution and the problems in the region would never have surfaced.

[Spider]

One of our stauchest allies and best friends in the world and you would have them go away. Nice. Perhaps we should have never intervened with Hitler's Final Solution and the problems in the region would never have surfaced.
a Friend would give back , a Friend wouldnt put you in these situations ....
A user would though ....... Israel is a user ......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

One of our stauchest allies and best friends in the world and you would have them go away. Nice.

I didn't say I would "have them go away" now that they are alreay here - I questioned England's wisdom in creating the Israeli nation state in the first place.

[RaiderH8r]

a Friend would give back , a Friend wouldnt put you in these situations ....
A user would though ....... Israel is a user ......
Israel is one big foxhole and they're all dug in. I disagree with some of their methods but I understand why they do it. They do give back. They refrain from going on a wholesale ass kicking campaign through the region at our urging.

[RaiderH8r]

I didn't say I would "have them go away" now that they are alreay here - I questioned England's wisdom in creating the Israeli nation state in the first place.
So I suppose you might think the Final Solution wasn't such a bad idea. :unamused:

[Spider]

Israel is one big foxhole and they're all dug in. I disagree with some of their methods but I understand why they do it. They do give back. They refrain from going on a wholesale ass kicking campaign through the region at our urging.
I admire Israel for what they have done with Israel , where I am talking about Bro is the Gaza strip ...... That was a bad move . Gollem Hights , I could over look but not the Gaza Strip .......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So I suppose you might think the Final Solution wasn't such a bad idea. :unamused:

???

What a bizarre conclusion to draw (unless, of course, you are one of those people who believes anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism.)