Ulhas
^^^^^ CB: Yes, to say that the Iraq and Afghan wars caused the London bombings is not to declare that the London bombings were justified or that right wing terrorists are _legitimate_ representatives of the victims of these wars ( so all the replies of how the masses in the "Middle East" don't support use of violence are not to the point here, even assuming the survey to be completely accurate)
The connection is an objective one.
We are saying to Bush, Blair and the U.S. and British people: If you do not stop attacking Iraq and other countries, then there are people out there, obviously, who will retalitate against you AND MORE IMPORTANTLY AGAINST ME SINCE I'M IN THE SAME COUNTRY AS BUSH. Doesn't matter that the retaliators are bad guys. British and American governments are "worse guys" in the larger picture; so whose bad and whose good is irrelevant.
Since the U.S./British wars are not justified either ( you all are "worse guys"), the conclusion is : the U.S. and Britain must stop carrying out these wars because YOU ARE ABOUT TO GET US INNOCENT BYSTANDERS IN YOUR COUNTRIES KILLED !!!
That's the message we on the left must be developing. We should have been developing it since 9/11. It is pragmatic message to the pragmatic Americans ( and British). Forget religion and ideology. Just focus on the objective issues. The only way to stop the little guys' terrorism if the U.S. and Britain to stop the big guys' terrorism ( shock and awe and all the rest; that's the biggest terrorism)
This is why we don't want Blair and the media to succeed at this crazy claim that the wars they have prosecuted are not resulting in deaths to the civilians of their country. The London bombings MUST become a reason to stop the war. Engaging in the denial of the connection between the wars and the bombings takes away a powerful, pragmatic argument for stopping the U.S./British war.