Bombing the messenger.

Listening to a lot of the media coverage over the last week or so, one might think that connecting last week’s atrocity in London with the UK/US assault on Iraq was indisputably wrong, even wicked. As I wrote a few days ago, David Davis, for instance, strenuously denied the notion on Radio 4 last week.

‘I don’t agree with George [Galloway]’s analysis. The simple truth is that the unspeakable events that happened this morning were carefully planned and calculated in order to maximize the amount of death and misery visited on Londoners by people who are frankly just evil. There’s no other description for people who will do such a thing to innocent people. And I’m afraid the sort of argument you’ve just heard is to effectively provide an excuse or an apologia for them and I simply will not do so.’

On last Friday’s Newsnight, Galloway himself received a disgraceful barracking from Gavin Esler for stating what, to many, is the bleedin’ obvious. The stick with which Esler attempted to beat Galloway – the idea that his remarks caused widespread offence – was shown to be a pitiful toothpick when the only ‘offence’ Esler could point to was that of the Armed Forces Minister, Adam Ingram. Yesterday, PM’s Eddie Mair only had to suggest to Charles Kennedy that he agreed with George Galloway to send him into a spluttering spin. Again, as I wrote last week, most 'respectable' commentators much prefer to stress the ‘absolute and congenital wickedness’ argument. In this case, that ‘Islamic’ terrorism is solely the result of theocratic extremism, not US/UK foreign policy as well.

Yet, only this weekend, the Sunday Times quoted a leaked government study on 'Young Muslims and Extremism', which found that ‘a significant number’ of Al-Qaeda recruits ‘come from liberal, non-religious Muslim backgrounds or (are) only converted to Islam in adulthood. These converts include white British nationals and those of West Indian extraction.’

More to the point, as the Times reported,

‘The Iraq war is identified by the dossier as a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism. The analysis says: "It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived ‘double standard’ in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the US.

‘The perception is that passive ‘oppression’, as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to ‘active oppression’. The war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam’ (Robert Winnett and David Leppard, 'Leaked No 10 dossier reveals Al-Qaeda’s British recruits' in The Sunday Times, July 10th 2005).

Leaving aside any squeamishness about ever again trusting a government ‘dossier’; clearly, the government’s own research partly endorses George Galloway’s view. The Iraq invasion is ‘a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism.'

This presumably explains why ‘journalists’ such as Gavin Esler and Jeremy Paxman refuse to engage with George Galloway but instead merely barrack and harangue him. They should not be allowed to get away with it.

Comments

[EU Serf]

.....– the idea that his remarks caused widespread offence – was shown to be a pitiful toothpick....

Just about everything that lover of Dictators ever says is offensive, but most of us have got used to it.

[sau]

Admittedly, there are a few things that are offensive about him.

"...lover of Dictators"?

Crikey, he`s got a lot in common with Thatcher.

[Gerbil001]

Sau - I think you are being terribly unfair to Thatcher. All she did was sell arms to Saddam Hussein and support the genocidal monster, Pinochet (among other little slips).

Galloway was far, far worse: he said 'I salute you, sir' to Saddam. I think that puts merely selling arms to the man in perspective, don't you?

[Raoul Djukanovic]

I was not impressed by Galloway's "war on Muslims" rhetoric and I have no interest in defending the government line.

To my mind it's seriously irresponsible to talk up the whole clash of civilisations story, whoever you may be.

Much as I loathe A.A. Gill and the smug prattle he churns out, this line in his pre-election hatchet job on Galloway was spot on:

What first attracted you to the Bethnal Green and Bow constituency, with its 40% Muslim voters, George?

For all that I enjoy his tirades, I don't see why he isn't regarded as a liability as well as an asset.

Perhaps I'm missing something.

[sau]

Hello Raoul.

I have a very good friend - a very trusted source - who did some research into Galloway last week (something to do with preparing for an interview with Galloway). They are against everything Bush and Blair have done since 9/11, but the word they used to describe Galloway after doing this research was: scumbag.

[Raoul Djukanovic]

Hi Sau,

Interesting... Could you elaborate?

[sau]

Hello Raoul.

As is my friend`s wont, she`s left me hanging on; such a tease.

I was promised info last week but I haven`t got any back yet.