The London Bombings: What They Said, What They Didn't Say

Fifty Londoners are estimated to have perished in the gruesome attack on London's underground subway system during the morning of Terror Thursday, June 7, 2005, in what are currently believed to have been the first suicide attacks against Britain in the country's history. The reasons behind this attack have hardly been discussed in depth among British or, in general, Western politicians, or among Western media, a phenomenon rather similar to the deaf silence that followed the attacks of September 11, 2001, that left the question "Why do they hate us?" unanswered. Thus far, political officials have distanced themselves from the statements of such politicians as Respect MP George Galloway, who says that this recent attack is a direct consequence of Britain's collusion with the Bush Administration's Middle East policy:

The loss of innocent lives, whether in this country or Iraq, is precisely the result of a world that has become a less safe and peaceful place in recent years.

We have worked without rest to remove the causes of such violence from our world. We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings.

We urge the government to remove people in this country from harms way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East.

Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence.

Indeed, this is a rather inescapable fact: Western interventionism begets terrorism. Such honesty has not been matched by other representatives and leaders. Prime Minister Tony Blair echoes US President Bush's pretense that "they attack us because of our freedom and civilization." A sample of genuine malarkey:

It's important that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world.

Similarly, Liberal Democratic MP Charles Kennedy, an anti-war MP who bases his opposition to the war in Iraq on UN legal grounds (and who is somewhat unpopular among certain party members), has failed to point to the clear connections between Middle East policy and terrorism, saying he "wouldn't link what's happened in London to Iraq."

Assuming that an Islamic terrorist group committed the acts on that Thursday morning, the motives are clear: revenge for British involvement in Bush's "War on Terror". It was at first America on September 11, 2001, for the reasons of undue support for Israel and a large military presence on the Arabian Peninsula. Afterwards, it was Bali, in which over one-hundred Australians were killed, then Madrid, in which nearly two-hundred Spaniards were killed, and now Britain. See a pattern? For the unengaged, all the nations attacked after September 11, 2001, participated in Bush's war against Iraq.

Further more, the ever-present Israeli connection. The story has been changing since it first escaped to the public, as Matt Hutaff of The Simon writes:

[...]Before today's attack, the Israeli Embassy in London was notified an attack was forthcoming. As a result, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remained in his hotel room rather than head towards a nearby hotel where he was to address an economic summit.

The embassy denies it had any prior knowledge, of course, but the story has changed dramatically in the process. If, as they say, Netanyahu was not warned, how did he know to stay in his room? How did he know the danger was so severe that he dare not venture out of the hotel?

Oops! The story's changed again – here Netanyahu says that British police had warned the Israelis (but not the rest of the city?) of a pending attack. Scotland Yard denies this; Israel's reply was to say Netanyahu received his warning after the first blast. How? It was initially reported as a power surge for hours. What is being hidden here? And why isn't there an investigation into these obvious discrepancies?

It's enough to make your head spin and your eyes cross with rage.

Needless to say, this connection has not been investigated thoroughly, and is hardly mentioned in the American mass media. This leaves one to recall the allegations of Israeli monitoring of hijackers and subsequent foreknowledge of the September 11, 2001, attacks. Again for the unengaged, the Sunday Herald writes:

There was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.

Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.

Their discovery and arrest that morning is a matter of indisputable fact. To those who have investigated just what the Israelis were up to that day, the case raises one dreadful possibility: that Israeli intelligence had been shadowing the al-Qaeda hijackers as they moved from the Middle East through Europe and into America where they trained as pilots and prepared to suicide-bomb the symbolic heart of the United States. And the motive? To bind America in blood and mutual suffering to the Israeli cause.

See also Antiwar.com's special section on the matter.