Well, I am sure you were all relieved to hear that neither Red Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, nor George Galloway, the British pro-Baathist MP, were among the victims of the al-Qaeda bombers in London. While parts of the British Left have even exhibited some brand new outrage at "terrorism", much of it is reverting not only to character but to caricature of itself.
First, incredibly, the liberal British press is actually using the "T" word. They are referring to the London Underground perps as terrorists. Why is this so unusual? Because the liberal British media have been religiously scrupulous in referring to all terrorists and mass murderers who attack Jews as "activists" and "militants".
It is suddenly like a parallel universe out there, not the one with which we are familiar. The ‘’activists'’ and ‘’militants'’ are suddenly referred to as ‘’terrorists.'’ Even the Guardian and most notably the BBC have discovered the ‘’T'’ word. It was suddenly not a legitimate form of protest against occupation to mass-murder civilians in such mainstream media outfits, although it certainly is among the British radicals. Maybe it was because the "activists" in this case were not simply murdering Jews. Most however, while condemning the perps, insisted that the "underlying cause" of the atrocities was that Britain had joined the US in the war against Islamofascist terrorism, and also insisted that the REAL damage of the bombings would prove to be that the British establishment would institute oppressive anti-democratic measures. In these claims, the British press was not saying much that was distinguishable from what the pro-terror Arab media were saying.
The Independent wrote: "Aside from the human distress, these bombings have done more to ease the course of illiberal legislation through Parliament than anything else ever could." The Guardian was full of commentaries claiming Britain was just getting its comeuppance. The Telegraph carried an Op-Ed telling its readers that London was bombed because of poverty in the Third World and because of Britain's guilt in global warming.
But while the mainstream British liberals may have been showing some rare common sense in at least their willingness to call a terrorist a terrorist, the left-wing radicals and Lunabrits were having a field day. Britain has more than its fair share of socialists, "Trotskyists" and "anarchists". [I have never quite figured out why designer-jean radicals imagine that they are "anarchists" and have long believed that a better description of such groups would be "anarcho-fascist".]
The "Trotskyites" issued a statement blaming the bombings on the British government, stating, "The British government cannot avoid its responsibility for these terrible attacks, which are a consequence of its support for war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The best way to ensure that there are no more such terrible attacks is for British troops to be withdrawn from there immediately." Meanwhile, "Solidarity Online" condemned both political-Islamist terrorism and US and British imperialism. The "Movement for a Socialist Future" announced: " Terrorism cannot be defeated by the "war on terror", which only deepens the problem because it refuses to address the causes of terrorism.
Perhaps most incredible was the speed with which left-wing fascists and conspiracy nuts discovered "evidence" that the bombs were placed by Jews and not by Arab terrorists. Within hours of the bombings nearly every anarcho-fascist, communist, Palestinian, and neonazi web site on the planet was publishing a new conspiracy "theory" of the bombings. Most of these had long been promoting a similar conspiracy "theory" about the 9-11 bombings, which held that either the Bush Republicans or the Israeli Mossad had really knocked down the WTC towers while blaming the poor al-Qaeda Arabs for the crime.
Under their new "theory", Israeli former Prime Minister and current Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had received "advanced warning" of the bombings, and had been advised to remain in his hotel. These "advanced warnings" prove that it was actually Israeli or Jewish agents who had planted the bombs in London in order to get the Brits angry at poor innocent Moslems.
Now as a matter of fact, Netanyahu did in fact receive a "warning", but it was from the British police and it was AFTER the bombs went off but before the full picture was clear, and the cops suggested to him that it would be prudent to stay in his hotel. Conspiracy nuts turned that into "evidence" that Israel was responsible for the bombings. There were in fact some reports that Israel had tipped off British Intelligence before the bombings that an al-Qaeda attack against London might be imminent, but that is not exactly the "proof" of nefarious conspiracy that the conspiracy nuts were seeking.
One interesting place to look for reactions to the atrocities in London is the British version of the "Indymedia" flagship web site of the anarcho-fascist movement. It was crawling with articles that insist that al-Qaeda is innocent of the bombings and being blamed for them because the conservatives need a patsy. Some postings claimed they were placed there by the CIA. Others went to lengths to clear al-Qaeda. Then there are the postings claiming that the bombings simply serve Blair’s interest in silencing the Left and their Islamist allies, and insisting that Blair’s people placed the bombs. And of course the postings blaming the bombings on the Jews or Israelis. John Pilger showed up on the site to blame Blair for the bombs: "They are 'Blair's bombs', and he ought not be allowed to evade culpability with yet another unctuous speech about 'our way of life', which his own rapacious violence in other countries has despoiled."
The UK Indymedia site even ran the raving article by San Francisco Dennis "Justin" Raimondo, editor of the neofascist pro-terror "antiwar.com" web site and columnist for Pravda. Raimondo had invented a "theory", crayoned into a self-published "book," claiming that Jews, and not al-Qaeda, knocked down the WTC on 9-11, this all on the basis of the fact that some Israeli moving men were picked up that day for visa violations and were found to have some dollar cash in a dirty sock.
Raimondo’s UK Indymedia piece (also published on his own antiwar.com site) claims that the Israelis planted the London bombs. Raimondo's evidence? The same fraudulent claims about how Netanyahu supposedly got "advance warnings of the bombs". But one of the most bizarre developments was that no sooner did Raimondo's lunatic "theory" appear across the web than a vicious attack against Raimondo was launched on some of those same web pages by Swedish neonazi "Israel Shamir." It seems that Raimondo, who is an anti-Semite, published a piece calling "Shamir" an anti-Semite, which he is. Raimondo wrote, “Shamir caters to his deranged constituency of Jew-haters,” and – somewhat mysteriously – Raimondo did not mean that as a compliment. Keeping these people apart is becoming such a burden!
In contrast, a nice critique of the Indymedia anarcho-fascists was published by the Freedom Institute of the Republic of Ireland, denouncing the Indymedia pro-terrorists. These Irish freedom fighters denounce the "anarchists" for violent rioting in Scotland against the G8 leaders meeting there, forcing police to divert manpower from London area just when they were needed there: "The regulars at the Institute for Autonomy, where most of the Indymedia UK inner circle hang out, are almost certainly unharmed, as they were engaging in recreational public disorder hundreds of miles away in Scotland and successfully diverting police resources from the capital. Well done compadres!"
The conspiracy "theory" about the Jews having placed the bombs spread through the internet, appears by now on every "Indymedia" web site, and has been repeated on such lunatic web sites as "The Simon", which wrote: "Considering the only Al Qaeda cell to ever be uncovered was a front for the Mossad, you’d think the perpetrators could at least come up with a clever new booga-booga name to grab headlines. Their arrogance is startling."
Meanwhile, George Galloway, Saddam Hussein’s paid agent in British politics, issued a statement about the bombs this week. You will not be surprised to learn that the lesson he insists that Britain draw from the mass murders is that the "occupation" of Iraq must be ended and of course that Israel must be destroyed:
"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."
Tariq Ali, a British Moslem leftist and pro-terror militant, wrote an article blaming the bombings on the West's mistreatment of Moslems. Reprinted widely, including on Counterpunch, it stated, "The principal cause of this violence is the violence that is being inflicted on the people of the Muslim world. The bombing of innocent people is equally barbaric in Baghdad, Jenin, Kabul as it is in New York, Madrid or London. And unless this is recognized the horrors will continue.... The real solution lies in immediately ending the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. "
Counterpunch, always to be relied upon to support anti-Western terrorists even when they target Alexander Cockburn’s own homeland, has already come out with at least one article that supports the terrorist bombers. It ran a piece by notorious British neonazi Gilad Atzmon, famous for his justifying the burning down of synagogues, and so openly anti-Semitic that large numbers of British leftists have been urging the Socialist Workers Party in the UK to cut all ties with him. Atzmon writes about the London bombings that the real lesson should be:
"It tells us that we must never again give our votes to war criminals. More than anything else it tells us that we have a moral duty. It is down to us to stop our governments. It is our duty to stand up and to demand the resignation of Blair who is responsible for the death of so many Iraqis and arguably now many Innocent Britons. We must remember that voting in a non-ethical politician makes us all into active shareholders in a criminal company…. It tells us that we must never again give our votes to war criminals."
Cockburn is truly a disciple of Oswald Mosley, who also cheered Britain's enemies while London was being bombed.
Finally, British lunacy is not restricted to the anarcho-fascists and the Albion lunatic fringe, but also can be found smack at Number 10 Downing. It is in the form of Cherie Blair who really "understand the motives" of the London bombers, justifying them and wishing to bond with them to find new common ground and mutual understandings. Cherie is so whacky that her pro-terror comments have been set to disco.
In fighting the terrorist threat to London, Tony Blair could do nothing more productive then muzzle his Misses. Cherie Blair has a long history of anti-American, pro-terror activism and statements. You may recall that she was the leading British voice denouncing the supposed mistreatment of al-Qaeda prisoners in Gitmo, and never mind that it turns out that they eat better than US troops do. And she dissed the American legal system - calling it a "grandfather clock" among "21st century timepieces" - and suggested it could learn lessons from Europe. She claims George Bush "stole" the election. Pro-terror Marxist web magazines love her. She has been up to her plucked eyebrows in a sleazy scandal involving Australian real estate, in cahoots with a notorious conman down under, in what the Brits are calling Cheriegate.
She provoked outrage in the British Jewish community two years ago when she said she understood why Palestinian suicide bombers were driven to do what they did. She told Palestinians that she understands and justifies suicide bombers.
So to be consistent, shouldn’t she apply her same "reasoning" to the perps of the London subway bombings?