|
West in denial about terror attacks
Since 2003, countries that sent troops to Iraq are being targeted by Islamists
By Gwynne Dyer
07/15/05 "Toronto
Star" - -It's official: The four suicide bombs that killed more than 50 Londoners last week had nothing to do with anything.
The family and friends of the young men who committed the atrocity, all British-born Muslims of Pakistani descent, insisted that their actions had nothing to do with Islam. Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democratic party, the only major British party to condemn the invasion of Iraq in last May's election, cautiously said, "I am not here implying some causal link between Britain's involvement in Iraq and the attacks in London."
Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman said it would be "naïve" to link the London bombs and the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. "This kind of terrorism was active long before the Iraq war," he pointed out. "9/11 was in September 2001, not 2003."
So there you have it. The 9/11 attacks, in which 19 men born in the Middle East killed several thousand innocent Americans and others, were just a random act by people who "hate freedom," and the target could just as easily have been Canada or Sweden.
The bombs in London on July 7, in which four young British men brought up in West Yorkshire murdered dozens of their fellow countrymen, could just as easily have happened 10 years ago. And, of course, none of it had anything to do with Islam.
We are drowning in lies. The U.S. government, whose troops, intelligence services and local proxies have spent the past 50 years subverting or crushing Middle Eastern governments (including democratic ones) that threatened its control of the region's oil, denies that the recent wave of terrorist attacks has anything to do with U.S. policy in the region.
But here's a clue: Arabs make up fewer than a quarter of the world's Muslims, but all 19 hijackers of 9/11, like almost every other Islamist radical that attacked any American target before the invasion of Iraq, were Arabs.
The British government similarly denies that there is any connection between Blair's decision to join President George Bush's Iraq adventure and the bombs in London.
Blair has to defend this position regardless of the evidence, because otherwise it would be solely his fault that Britain is now a target for Islamist terrorism.
But here's another clue. Every major terrorist attack by Islamists since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 has targeted the citizens of countries that sent troops to Iraq: Americans, not Canadians; British, not French; Spanish, not Germans; Australians, not New Zealanders.
And these later attacks have not all been carried out by Arabs.
Other Muslims are now getting involved, too: Indonesians in the bomb attack on Australian tourists in Bali; Turks in the attacks on the British consulate and Jewish institutions in Istanbul; and now British Muslims of non-Arab origin in attacks on their own fellow-citizens.
Is there some "causal link" here, as Charles Kennedy so delicately put it? You bet your boots there is.
Muslims everywhere were horrified by 9/11 and quite rightly denied that it was in any way an expression of Islamic values.
Many Arabs, however, did share the grievances that had radicalized the terrorists, and even felt a fleeting, guilty satisfaction at seeing Americans suffer as so many Arabs have suffered. Whereas most non-Arab Muslims, at that point, saw no excuse whatever for the attacks, and felt nothing but sympathy for the United States.
Then came the invasion of Iraq, which was obviously not about fighting terrorism (since there weren't any terrorists there, or any links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda).
All over the world, Muslims, and especially young Muslims, began to conclude that there was some substance to the Islamist radicals' argument that the West was indiscriminately attacking Muslims everywhere; that it was actually attacking Islam itself.
This was the point at which terrorist attacks by non-Arab Muslims living in Western countries first became a serious possibility, for the entire Muslim community in countries like Britain, the U.S. and Australia felt betrayed by its own government.
Only the tiniest minority of their young men and women are ever likely to respond to that sense of betrayal with actual terrorist attacks. But the connection between Britain's participation in the invasion of Iraq and the bombs in London is strong.
Not one of the Western countries that drew the line at an unprovoked invasion of Iraq — not even the ones like France, Germany and Canada that sent troops to help the U.S. fight terrorism in Afghanistan, and that have large Muslim minorities at home — has seen such an attack, nor probably will it. Actions do have consequences.
Gwynne Dyer is a London-based Canadian journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
