[lbo-talk] Sensible violence?

Carl Remick carlremick at hotmail.com
Tue Jul 12 07:54:46 PDT 2005



>From: "James Heartfield" <Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk>
>
>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."

You seem oddly obtuse there, James. The case that the London bombings are a direct response to Blair's murderous assault on Iraq may be circumstantial but seems highly likely. As Henry David Thoreau said of suspected milk-watering: "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."

Carl



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list