Amid the Wreckage, Britain Seeks Answers
London calmly picked itself up from Thursday's terrorist attacks and began to count the corpses yesterday, its citizens and leaders embarked on the far more difficult task of finding an explanation amid the chaos and wreckage. Some... took an almost evangelical tone, declaring that the political sinners of Britain had only themselves to blame, for having sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan and for having disobeyed the commands of Osama bin Laden ... A variety of Britons argued that the attacks were well-deserved revenge for their country's efforts to impose those values on more authoritarian countries, especially in the ill-fated Iraq war.
Globe and Mail

Amid the Wreckage, Canada's Warmonger Press Continues Lying its citizens and leaders embarked on the far more difficult task of finding an explanation amid the chaos and wreckage. Oh yeah, a bit of analysis is so much tougher than picking yourself up after a terrorist attack: if you weren't in the blast zone, that is. Some... took an almost evangelical tone, declaring that the political sinners of Britain had only themselves to blame, for having sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan and for having disobeyed the commands of Osama bin Laden. Does anyone believe this? That there are people in Britain who openly advocate obedience to Osama bin Ladin. We challenge the Globe and Mail. Give us a direct quote or acknowledge that this claim is a lie. (But don't hold your breath folks. Everything at the Globe and Mail web site goes down the memory hole after a few weeks, lies and all, so there's no need to justify anything, its never going to come back to haunt them.) A variety of Britons argued that the attacks were well-deserved revenge for their country's efforts to impose those values on more authoritarian countries, especially in the ill-fated Iraq war. And who said so? George Galloway, apparently. But did he? Here's what he actually said "We argued that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain... Tragically, Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings." To anyone with even the most rudimentary analytical intelligence, it is evident that Galloway neither said nor implied that the ruthless killings in London were "well-deserved." So the Globe and Mail story encapsulates at least two flagrant lies, intended to divert attention from the obvious truth of Galloway's statement: if you go to war, your enemy will try to hurt you. But that is the truth that the warmonger press will not acknowledge, for it will not acknowledge any responsibility for the consequences of its propaganda for war. As yet, we do not know who the perpetrators of these murderous attacks are, or therefore, what reasons they had for committing them. But that does not deter the Globe's Op. Ed. page columnist, Margaret Wente, from telling us what happened and why: Their aim is not political. Their aim is to create havoc. Perhaps, like their hero, Osama bin Laden, they hope to expel the infidel from the lands of the believers and convert the world to a 14th-century version of the true faith, and if you don't like it, you deserve to die. How does she know? As to that, she ain't sayin. She just goes on to indulge in some vicious hate speech about Muslims: The bitter truth is that it's not Tony Blair's support for the war that's come back to haunt him, so much as Britain's lenient asylum laws and its tolerance of a wide assortment of militant Muslim groups. It's not for nothing that London's nickname is Londonistan. 'Under our rule this country would be known as the Islamic Republic of Great Britain,' declared the leader of one group. So not only does she know the motives of the killers, she knows who they are: Muslim asylum seekers. How does she know that? Obviosly she doesn't. What she says is simply a lie. But facts are not of any concern to the Globe and Mail. In that respect, the Globe is like Rupert Murdoch's vile U.K. tabloid the Sun, it simply lies about, or libels, those who oppose its enthusiasm for war. On the whole, of the two, the Sun might be considered the better paper. You don't have to be an inveterate wanker to prefer the Page 3 Girl to a daily dose of Margaret Wente. Permanent Link

The Canadian Spectator is optimized for viewing with Firefox Version 1.02.

Please address correspondence to .