So we're arguing over the explanation of the attacks. I think that it's far easier to imagine the bombers thinking (like the 9/11 terrorists) "I'm doing this because of what these people are doing to my people," that to imagine them thinking "I'm doing this because I'm politically isolated."
As was the case after 9/11, those who are suggesting any explanation at all (besides "madness" and "hatred") are charged with being sympathetic towards the crimes. "British Politicians Unite Behind Blair" (headlines the WP) and assert "'No evidence' Iraq led to attacks" (BBC). In the Commons yesterday a Labour backbencher attacked Galloway et al. for "making excuses for the mass murderers whose hatred of humanity is no less than the Nazis"... --CGE
---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:07:39 +0100
>From: "James Heartfield" <Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk>
>Subject: [lbo-talk] Sensible violence?
>To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>
> I don't agree with C.G. Estabrook/George Galloway's
> argument that the killings are inexcusable but not
> inexplicable. That is to say that this was somehow a
> spontaneous response to attacks on the Middle East.
> But the relationship is not so direct. Someone else
> posted up Gary Younge's similar argument from the
> Guardian newspaper. I posted them this reply (which
> turned out to be surplus to their requirements):
>
> "I opposed the Iraq war, but I still think it is
> daft to blame Tony Blair for the London bombings
> (Blair's blowback, 11 July 2005). He is culpable for
> the deaths in Falluja, but others bombed the
> Underground, and bear responsibility for their
> actions. As far as anyone can tell, the inspiration
> for the bombings arises from the political isolation
> of the fundamentalists, not from a groundswell of
> support behind them in Iraq, or anywhere else."
> ...