Why Terrorism Will Continue?

There is a stubborn refusal by western leaders like Blair to acknowledge that the grievances of Middle-East Arabs, Afghans and Iranians have been caused by the US' insidious involvement and avaricious interference in their affairs, countries and resources. The refusal to recognise the US' vested interests is of course a political one, for like the US Administration, Blair has to justify to British citizens why their sons and daughters have been or are sent to die in other people’s land.

On TV I have sadly seen some Americans actually believing their sons and daughters had perished in Iraq in a patriotic duty to prevent Saddam Hussein and his henchmen launching missiles with nuclear and bio-chemical warheads to mainland USA. Their pitiful ignorance has been the result of their Administration’s propaganda, their equally pitiful acceptance of the Administration's evil sacrifice of their sons and daughters has been the result of the neo-cons' diabolical ambitions and vested interests.

To continue to brainwash those gullible people, the Administration’s argument would be the usual:

“You cannot reason with or appease such people, who hate, are envious of, or seek to destroy our way of life. We are not going to curl up and accept their unreasonable demands as nothing will satisfy these terrorists. We cannot conduct foreign policy on the basis of negotiating for indemnity from terrorists.”

Take these typical statements (above), and imagine that they have been uttered by an Iraqi, Chilean, Vietnamese or Iranian. Who do you think they would be referring to?

Yes, the very thing that Bush and Blair trot out is applicable to them, in fact more so than the other way around. The USA together with Britain conducted illegal invasions and impose their political will on locals to protect their own interests. We have witnessed how the USA had misused Iraqi funds by the billions of dollars.

Can one reason with or appease the USA?

Some of their supporters would play the argumentative game, that detractors or protestors preferred Osama bin Laden. Let me ask - has anyone ever heard anti-war organizations or liberals say that?

Christopher Kremmer, one journalist whom I have respected in the past has reacted angrily and emotionally (and understandably) to the slaughter of innocent Londoners. But the way he argued against the cause of the bombings being Britain's military attack and occupation of Iraq had been less than clinical and precise, and definitely not undestandable from a professional journalist.

I know that probably he didn't want any excuse like the Iraq War to stand between the bombing crimes and the perpetrators. No one has suggested those bombers weren't killers. They definitely were, but we need to ask, why would such British born young men, brought up to participate in and enjoy the British way of life suddenly gave evereything away, including their own lives?

If we fail to ask that, like British socialist Tariq Ali (an atheist) has correctly done, we do ourselves and many other citizens a grave injustice, for then we cannot tackle the problem for the fact that we have refused to identify the root cause..

Kremmer criticised Tariq Ali for saying what the former British Police Chief had already acknowledged - that the London bombings were related to the British military presence in Iraq. Kremmer scolded Tariq Ali for blaming the West for everything. In this, he appeared to assume the position taken by Bush and Blair.

His remarks against Tariq Ali's views came out disappointingly in the argumentative “Until we surrender and apologise to His Holiness Osama bin Laden and declare September 11 an international holiday, we will presumably have no right to catch a train or a bus in our own cities.”

Did Tariq Ali refer to a need to be obsequious to Osama bin Laden or to rejoice in the 9/11 incident? Please read and judge for yourself what Tariq Ali had actually said.

By making that completely off-track allegation, which would be more expected of a White House press officer, Kremmer has introduced a revolting person like Osama and the tragedy of 9/11 into the debate. He might not have realised it but that was tantamount to hitting below the emotional belt.

By inserting these unwarranted factors, he might be unwittngly starting:

(a) a different argument which would then draw attention away from the indisputable fact that the USA and Britain are right now inside a sovereign nation’s territory, occupying it and ruling the locals, and

(b) a pre-emptive intimidation against the opposition by threatening them of being seen as a supporter of Osama and rejoicing in the events of 9/11, should they argue against him.

Another of his disappointing statements was "George Bush's policies may be deeply worrying, but that doesn't make bin Laden a hero."

There are a couple of points to consider here:

(a) Bush's policies have been termed only as 'worrying', when they are downright illegal, arrogant, deceitful, avaricious and criminal.

'Worrying' - that's what a typical euphemism looks like.

(b) Osama bin Laden is not and never will be a hero, but the reality has been that Bush's actions in Iraq have made Osama 'look' like a hero, in as much as Osama's actions and utterances have made Bush 'look' like a hero too.

These are the standard and utterly improverished fare we may expect from the pro-Bush/Blair people. And the equally disappointing but predictable remark to close the argumentative assertions would be the usual ‘dare’ for the opposition to live under the Talibans, to see how they would like it.

What the hell has that got to do with the USA and Britain attacking and occupying Iraq? What the hell has that got to do with Tariq Ali's relevant comments?

I feel that Kremmer has permitted his emotions to override his usual standards. In such examples, I believe that's why terrorism will continue, for the reason no one wants to know its cause.

Bush and Blair obviously don't wants us to know, but it's sad to see some people still blindly or unwittingly supporting their lies by refusing to ask about the truth. And when someone like Tariq Ali comes along with a discerning observation, he is shouted down - as if he supports Osama bin Laden or the Talibans, or he had rejoiced in 9/11.

The unfortunate thing is you and I are more likely to cop it from the terrorists than Bush or Blair. But then, who says the world is just.