Bomb in London

Remove all ads!

How is the UK response to 7/7 different from the US response to 9/11? Bush and Guiliani gave all sorts of Blairite speeches telling people that Arab and Muslim Americans were just as 'Merkin as any other American, and the Bushies were (temporarily) thwarted in their attempt to turn attention to Iraq, instead focussing on Afghanistan using soldiers from a large coalition of countries, including Deutschland. And the UK isn't rushing like Spain to pull it's troops out of Iraq...

Having watched 9/11 from about a mile away, and wandered about lower manhattan later that day, I can also report from NYC a distinct lack of hysteria. Sure, people were shaken, and pissed off, but at the same time people were incredibly friendly and polite, and for NYC that's saying something.

Finally, sure Iraq was upsetting to the bombers. But that wasn't the root cause; what were the grievances for 9/11, or for the original bombing in 1993. Aid to Israel? Will these people be happy as long as Israel is around? Will they be happy as long as East Timor is independent (and believe me, that's a real sore point)? Will they be happy as long as Muslim women can't cover in France, and if they got that, would they be upset with the sale of alcohol in France? What about Theo van Gogh, did he deserve to die for criticizing the treatment of women under fundamentalist Islam?

Try reading some islamic websites, and see exactly how susceptible to wild conspiracy theories alot of these people are. I've even known highly educated people who somehow held in their head at the same time the idea that 1) Bush/CIA/UN/World Bank what have you was behind various bombings in the West; and 2) these bombings were payback for failed Western bombings. Like having "tea" and "no tea" at the same time in the Hitchhiker's Guide game; quite a philospher, no?

I agree the US and the West could do much better in relating with the Muslim world, but I disagree that giving in to each and every demand is a good idea by any stretch of the imagination. The West needs to clean up its act in terms of supporting autocratic regimes in the Muslim world, but moderate Muslims also have to reign in their own extremists, and stop engaging in their entrenched habits of blaming the West for everything, including their own stupid mistakes and practices...

 

I do not suggest giving in to each and every of their demands. The British didn't do that too. But to adress some of the points they make will sure help a lot.

I truly doubt that there is a distinct need for the U.S. to have their presence all over the Middle East for instance, it's merely a nice-to-have-thing, and as I see it the Pentagon politicos 'do' these bases just because they *can* do it. A much more low key approach could just as much ensure U.S. influence, if that in the current form is desired. Stop the open meddling, diplomats are quiet.

Democratic reform is another thing. If the U.S. take democratic reform serious they have to live with outspoken and U.S. critical, if not hostile, regimes all over the Middle East - that doesn't equal terror sponsor countries - but in any case it will give the U.S. a hard time.
If they want to nationalise their industries, so be it. If they want a theocracy, so be it. If you want democracy and take democracy serious you'll have to respect their pick.

With their well known history of regime changing and in fact suffocating the few truly democratically elected regimes in the Middle East because they were too left, the U.S. should be very careful in this respect. It backfired badly already in 1978 when the Mullah's replaced the Shah. There is no need for history to repeat itself.

After all the U.S. have to recognise that they cannot simply impose some elite or exiles as a democratic force there as they tried to do in the colour coded revolutions in the former U.S.S.R. that didn't serve any other purpose but to roll back russian influence.
For the people, nothing really changed. In Lebanon the U.S. sponsored 'democrats' found to their dismay that Hezbollah, representing just a third of the country, can 'do democracy', too. In fact, they beat them at their own game.

The countries will have to find a way of their own without open meddling. If U.S. policies are a problem in a country, the U.S. supporting a pro-U.S. party openly will only serve to de-legitimise it.

There are sure a good number of backward blame-it-all-on-the-U.S.-and-Israel-and-the-Jews folks all over the Middle East, but people in the U.S. should not be so derisive here - crackpot conspiracy theories are very much at home there as well, starting with U.N. paranoia to belief in UFOs and whatever.

[ July 17, 2005, 01:30: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

As former Secetary of State Mo Mowlam once mentioned that she was told that Gerry Adams could not be reasoned with, as culturally Ireland and England are very different and that the IRA would not stop their 'reign of terror' until every British person left Ireland! Thankfully she was intelligent enough to try a differnt approach, which improved the security here greatly.

Well if she was correct about 'Uncle Gerry' then she is probably correct about bin Laden.

I can guarentee that if British soldiers had raped Catholic (or any Irish) women and children or any other 'abuses' that went on in Abu Ghribe or 'Gitmo', our so-called 'trouble' would be a lot more bloody.

As you can see from the following link that there are no bitter feelings towards England, even from Nationalists.

[ July 18, 2005, 14:53: Message edited by: Cúchulainn ]