What do you think?
Rate this book
7-7: The London Bombings, Islam and and the Iraq War
This is the book Tony Blair doesn't want you to read about 7/7.
In February 2003, Tony Blair was warned by British intelligence that the invasion of Iraq would 'heighten' the risk of terrorism in Britain.
In July 2005, al-Qaeda struck in the heart of London. Despite the British Government's increasingly desperate attempts at denial, polls show that an overwhelming majority of people in Britain are convinced that there is a connection between the London bombings and the war on Iraq. A majority of Britons fault Tony Blair himself.
Using secret government documents declassified since the bombings, and leaks from British intelligence, Milan Rai exposes official deceit at the highest levels, and establishes the crucial role of British foreign policy in generating a home-grown version of al-Qaeda. Rai shows how an official report drawn up by the Home Office and Foreign Office in early 2004 identified 'foreign policy' - and the war in Iraq in particular - as a major cause of alienation among young British Muslims.
Examining the backgrounds of the 7/7 bombers, Milan Rai demonstrates that Islam is not to blame. Most importantly, the book shows us how to make sure that this never happens again -- and offers brief obituaries for the 52 people who lost their lives that day.
In February 2003, Tony Blair was warned by British intelligence that the invasion of Iraq would 'heighten' the risk of terrorism in Britain.
In July 2005, al-Qaeda struck in the heart of London. Despite the British Government's increasingly desperate attempts at denial, polls show that an overwhelming majority of people in Britain are convinced that there is a connection between the London bombings and the war on Iraq. A majority of Britons fault Tony Blair himself.
Using secret government documents declassified since the bombings, and leaks from British intelligence, Milan Rai exposes official deceit at the highest levels, and establishes the crucial role of British foreign policy in generating a home-grown version of al-Qaeda. Rai shows how an official report drawn up by the Home Office and Foreign Office in early 2004 identified 'foreign policy' - and the war in Iraq in particular - as a major cause of alienation among young British Muslims.
Examining the backgrounds of the 7/7 bombers, Milan Rai demonstrates that Islam is not to blame. Most importantly, the book shows us how to make sure that this never happens again -- and offers brief obituaries for the 52 people who lost their lives that day.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
12 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 11, 2014
A really good book focusing on the 7/7 2005 terror attacks in London. The book tries to identify the reasons for the attack and individuals can be radicalised to commit acts of terrorism.
The central premise is that British foreign policy, in particular the Iraq War in 2003 is a contributory factor to terrorism against Britain. My initial impressions were that this relatively slim book was quite pricey for such an obvious statement - in my opinion there are not any earth shattering revelations in here. For anyone with any common sense it's clear that Al-Qaeda style terrorism only started in Britain after the Iraq War and only became an internal threat as a result of Britain's foreign policy.
However, there is quite a lot to this book and it is very well sourced which is a real benefit. There is documented evidence that the British government knew this was likely and lied to the British public and ignored the opinions of the vast majority of people with it's action in Afghanistan and Iraq. Again, that Blair's government lied isn't a shock - most of the electorate know this already.
Areas of the book I felt were very strong was the background given to the bombers - the author does not condone the acts of the bombers but very vividly demonstrates that the majority of the men were considered decent people who were valued in their community and by their family and friends. It also showed how 'normal' people can be radicalised and also hide it from those closest to them.
I also appreciated the section on the victims of the bombs. I was both saddened and touched reading their individual tribute. This book could be viewed as sympathetic to the bombing or critical only of British foreign policy but focusing on the victims was very powerful and they were very real to me - more real than I remember from coverage when the bombing occurred. Rai handles this sensitively and never excuses the act or treats the bombers as 'victims'.
I also learned much about Islam and how jihadi texts can be interpreted. I found this really useful and may read up on this further as like most non-Muslims I know little about it's faith or structure. It also explained a few things for me in relation to Pakistani 'folk Islam', in particular how a working class Asian community may defend itself but would struggle to link up with white working class on wider issues. I also found the point regarding Islamic terrorism poignant in that bombing abortion clinics or Israel's treatment of Palestinians is never referred to as Christian terrorism or Jewish terrorism.
The book's conclusion was interesting and demonstrated how completely ineffective the government's response was to the bombings in tackling the underlying issues. Reports identified alienation and an inability to influence Britain's foreign policy - a policy perceived as being anti-muslim. It is noted that what Britain considers 'moderate' muslims to be are in fact 'muslims who will keep quiet and approve of our policies in relation to Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.' I found it quite apt that for all the talk of fundamentalism, Britain's foreign policy can be considered unbending, unyielding and barbaric - fundamentalist even.
The central premise is that British foreign policy, in particular the Iraq War in 2003 is a contributory factor to terrorism against Britain. My initial impressions were that this relatively slim book was quite pricey for such an obvious statement - in my opinion there are not any earth shattering revelations in here. For anyone with any common sense it's clear that Al-Qaeda style terrorism only started in Britain after the Iraq War and only became an internal threat as a result of Britain's foreign policy.
However, there is quite a lot to this book and it is very well sourced which is a real benefit. There is documented evidence that the British government knew this was likely and lied to the British public and ignored the opinions of the vast majority of people with it's action in Afghanistan and Iraq. Again, that Blair's government lied isn't a shock - most of the electorate know this already.
Areas of the book I felt were very strong was the background given to the bombers - the author does not condone the acts of the bombers but very vividly demonstrates that the majority of the men were considered decent people who were valued in their community and by their family and friends. It also showed how 'normal' people can be radicalised and also hide it from those closest to them.
I also appreciated the section on the victims of the bombs. I was both saddened and touched reading their individual tribute. This book could be viewed as sympathetic to the bombing or critical only of British foreign policy but focusing on the victims was very powerful and they were very real to me - more real than I remember from coverage when the bombing occurred. Rai handles this sensitively and never excuses the act or treats the bombers as 'victims'.
I also learned much about Islam and how jihadi texts can be interpreted. I found this really useful and may read up on this further as like most non-Muslims I know little about it's faith or structure. It also explained a few things for me in relation to Pakistani 'folk Islam', in particular how a working class Asian community may defend itself but would struggle to link up with white working class on wider issues. I also found the point regarding Islamic terrorism poignant in that bombing abortion clinics or Israel's treatment of Palestinians is never referred to as Christian terrorism or Jewish terrorism.
The book's conclusion was interesting and demonstrated how completely ineffective the government's response was to the bombings in tackling the underlying issues. Reports identified alienation and an inability to influence Britain's foreign policy - a policy perceived as being anti-muslim. It is noted that what Britain considers 'moderate' muslims to be are in fact 'muslims who will keep quiet and approve of our policies in relation to Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.' I found it quite apt that for all the talk of fundamentalism, Britain's foreign policy can be considered unbending, unyielding and barbaric - fundamentalist even.
June 5, 2024
AN EXAMINATION THE “POLITICAL” MOTIVATIONS OF THE BOMBERS
Author Milan Rai wrote in the Introduction to this 2006 book, “In the immediate aftermath of the bombings on 7 July 2005, one explanation for the tragedy was firmly ruled out by the British government. Tony Blair denied any connection between the July attacks … and the ongoing war in Iraq… The Prime Minister failed to acknowledge the contents of secret documents… which demonstrated that his own government accepted exactly this connection… There is a central question: how young men born bred in Britain, with all the rights and freedoms a British citizen enjoys, could decide to blow themselves up… killing fellow citizens. What the British people want… is not ‘narration’ but ‘explanation.’ This book is an attempt to supply a first draft of that explanation, an investigation into precisely the areas that the Blair government wishes to obscure and conceal.” (Pg. 1) He adds, “the intention of this book is quite narrow. It does not attempt to deal with the entire phenomenon of suicide terrorism, or religious fundamentalism, or the al-Qaeda network, or Islam. The aim here is to provide a partial response to the challenge…: ‘What is important is why it happened and how it can be prevented from happening again.’” (Pg. 5)
He asserts, “To suggest that the ongoing war in Iraq---quite apart from being illegal and illegitimate and disastrous for the people of Iraq themselves---also substantially increases the risk of terrorism in Britain itself, was to strike a heavy political blow at an increasingly unpopular policy pursued by an increasingly unpopular leader. That is why Tony Blair had to resort to smearing anyone who inquired into this topic as a terrorist sympathizer.” (Pg. 14)
He argues, “The Prime Minister’s attempt to avoid responsibility by saying ‘we have always been a target for al Qaeda’ is contradicted by the government’s own internal analysis that Muslim perceptions of British bias ‘seem to have become MORE acute post 9/11.’ Britain had been seen as uncaring towards Muslims around the world, but, with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and British support for the wider US ‘war on terror,’ malign neglect was seen to have hardened into ‘active oppression’ of Muslims.” (Pg. 18)
He states, “This reading of the plot is not compatible with ‘brainwashing.’ … The suffering of Muslims in Chechnya, Palestine, Iraq, Thailand, Kashmir, and so on is real. The question is what interpretation one puts on it. Al-Qaeda has a diagnosis and a prescription that makes sense to some young Muslims. This interpretation is something that some young Muslims themselves seek out… It is not forced on them. It is ‘self-radicalization’… The question is not, then, one of how al-Qaeda recruiter managed to brainwash ‘nice’ people into carrying out atrocities. The question is how a ‘nice’ person could conceivably come to choose such a path.” (Pg. 56)
He points out, “The most troubling findings of the youGov poll were that 24 per cent of British Muslims had some sympathy for the motives and feelings of the London bombers, and 26 per cent of British Muslims disagreed with the Prime Minister that the ideas behind the bombings were ‘perverted’ and ‘poisonous.’ We have seen that only a tiny percentage of British Muslims think Western society should be brought to an end by violence, or that the Qur’an justifies suicide bombings, or that the London bombings were justified. A substantial proportion of the British Muslim population, however, shares the disaffection of the bombers. How has this come about?” (Pg. 80)
He notes, “in many countries around the world, Muslims are being brutally oppressed either by non-Muslim governments, or by Muslim regimes funded and supported by non-Muslim governments. For many Muslims, this reality makes it plausible that the rich white Christian governments---the United States, in particular---are engaged in a war against Islam itself… The charge against the United States and Britain is that they are either turning a blind eye (Thailand), offering political support to the oppressor (Russia/Chechnya, Uzbekistan), funding and supplying the aggressor (Egypt, Israel/Palestine, Algeria), or directly engaging in oppression (Iraq, Afghanistan). An honest investigation demonstrates the essential truth of this analysis. What is not true is the claim that this constitutes a systematic and conscious campaign against Islam led by Washington. The most obvious counter-evidence is the long-standing and total commitment of the United States to the House of Saud, one of the most fundamentalist Islamic regimes ever seen.” (Pg. 105-106)
He observes, “For young Muslims… there has been the further shock of being rejected and condemned as Muslims by the backlash since the 11 September attacks… They tend to reject the traditional, folk Islam of their parents for a more austere and more personally demanding version of High Islam. Islamic fundamentalism can be a form of rebellion against the authority of the older generation while apparently submitting to the older generation’s command to follow tradition.” (Pg. 119-120)
He summarizes, “What often unites violent and reclusive forms of Islamic fundamentalism is the belief that Islam is under attack … Such a basic worldview lies at the heart of fundamentalism in different religions---the sense of being besieged by outside forces… The choice them becomes one between a retreat from wider society (which is seen as a threat), or a campaign against wider society (which is seen as a moral enemy). That campaign can be nonviolent, or it may be an armed struggle.” (Pg. 122)
He explains, “It may be that the most important word in this book is ‘humiliation.’ The sense of humiliation and powerlessness felt by the suicide bombers in the face of Muslim suffering may have been the most important factor in pushing these four young men towards this tragedy… The bombers saw no way of regaining their honor other than massive indiscriminate violence. They had adopted a particular kind of thinking which matched their anger and despair and hatred, which led them to ‘assert their dignity’ in the most destructive, cruel and shameful fashion possible.” (Pg. 140)
He contends, “When we look into the roots of the London bombings, we find four fairly ordinary young men who wanted change to happen quickly. They seem to have been led by an unshakeable sense of ‘powerlessness’ towards mass murder and suicide. They seem to have been drive to a special kind of immoral fanaticism by an acute empathy with the suffering of the umma [Muslim community] around the world, a highly developed sense of responsibility to their fellow Muslims, a profound religiosity, and fanatical and violent interpretation of Islam, and despair at the apparent immobility of British foreign policy… the war in Iraq was a critical factor in their radicalization.” (Pg. 161)
He concludes, I do not know how we can lay the foundations of this memorial without withdrawing from our war of occupation in Iraq, without offering a heartfelt apology for what we have done there, and without paying due restitution.” (Pg. 166)
This book (though obviously written from the far-“Left” perspective) will be of great interest to those wanting to know more about the 7/7 London bombings and their interpretation in Britain.
Author Milan Rai wrote in the Introduction to this 2006 book, “In the immediate aftermath of the bombings on 7 July 2005, one explanation for the tragedy was firmly ruled out by the British government. Tony Blair denied any connection between the July attacks … and the ongoing war in Iraq… The Prime Minister failed to acknowledge the contents of secret documents… which demonstrated that his own government accepted exactly this connection… There is a central question: how young men born bred in Britain, with all the rights and freedoms a British citizen enjoys, could decide to blow themselves up… killing fellow citizens. What the British people want… is not ‘narration’ but ‘explanation.’ This book is an attempt to supply a first draft of that explanation, an investigation into precisely the areas that the Blair government wishes to obscure and conceal.” (Pg. 1) He adds, “the intention of this book is quite narrow. It does not attempt to deal with the entire phenomenon of suicide terrorism, or religious fundamentalism, or the al-Qaeda network, or Islam. The aim here is to provide a partial response to the challenge…: ‘What is important is why it happened and how it can be prevented from happening again.’” (Pg. 5)
He asserts, “To suggest that the ongoing war in Iraq---quite apart from being illegal and illegitimate and disastrous for the people of Iraq themselves---also substantially increases the risk of terrorism in Britain itself, was to strike a heavy political blow at an increasingly unpopular policy pursued by an increasingly unpopular leader. That is why Tony Blair had to resort to smearing anyone who inquired into this topic as a terrorist sympathizer.” (Pg. 14)
He argues, “The Prime Minister’s attempt to avoid responsibility by saying ‘we have always been a target for al Qaeda’ is contradicted by the government’s own internal analysis that Muslim perceptions of British bias ‘seem to have become MORE acute post 9/11.’ Britain had been seen as uncaring towards Muslims around the world, but, with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and British support for the wider US ‘war on terror,’ malign neglect was seen to have hardened into ‘active oppression’ of Muslims.” (Pg. 18)
He states, “This reading of the plot is not compatible with ‘brainwashing.’ … The suffering of Muslims in Chechnya, Palestine, Iraq, Thailand, Kashmir, and so on is real. The question is what interpretation one puts on it. Al-Qaeda has a diagnosis and a prescription that makes sense to some young Muslims. This interpretation is something that some young Muslims themselves seek out… It is not forced on them. It is ‘self-radicalization’… The question is not, then, one of how al-Qaeda recruiter managed to brainwash ‘nice’ people into carrying out atrocities. The question is how a ‘nice’ person could conceivably come to choose such a path.” (Pg. 56)
He points out, “The most troubling findings of the youGov poll were that 24 per cent of British Muslims had some sympathy for the motives and feelings of the London bombers, and 26 per cent of British Muslims disagreed with the Prime Minister that the ideas behind the bombings were ‘perverted’ and ‘poisonous.’ We have seen that only a tiny percentage of British Muslims think Western society should be brought to an end by violence, or that the Qur’an justifies suicide bombings, or that the London bombings were justified. A substantial proportion of the British Muslim population, however, shares the disaffection of the bombers. How has this come about?” (Pg. 80)
He notes, “in many countries around the world, Muslims are being brutally oppressed either by non-Muslim governments, or by Muslim regimes funded and supported by non-Muslim governments. For many Muslims, this reality makes it plausible that the rich white Christian governments---the United States, in particular---are engaged in a war against Islam itself… The charge against the United States and Britain is that they are either turning a blind eye (Thailand), offering political support to the oppressor (Russia/Chechnya, Uzbekistan), funding and supplying the aggressor (Egypt, Israel/Palestine, Algeria), or directly engaging in oppression (Iraq, Afghanistan). An honest investigation demonstrates the essential truth of this analysis. What is not true is the claim that this constitutes a systematic and conscious campaign against Islam led by Washington. The most obvious counter-evidence is the long-standing and total commitment of the United States to the House of Saud, one of the most fundamentalist Islamic regimes ever seen.” (Pg. 105-106)
He observes, “For young Muslims… there has been the further shock of being rejected and condemned as Muslims by the backlash since the 11 September attacks… They tend to reject the traditional, folk Islam of their parents for a more austere and more personally demanding version of High Islam. Islamic fundamentalism can be a form of rebellion against the authority of the older generation while apparently submitting to the older generation’s command to follow tradition.” (Pg. 119-120)
He summarizes, “What often unites violent and reclusive forms of Islamic fundamentalism is the belief that Islam is under attack … Such a basic worldview lies at the heart of fundamentalism in different religions---the sense of being besieged by outside forces… The choice them becomes one between a retreat from wider society (which is seen as a threat), or a campaign against wider society (which is seen as a moral enemy). That campaign can be nonviolent, or it may be an armed struggle.” (Pg. 122)
He explains, “It may be that the most important word in this book is ‘humiliation.’ The sense of humiliation and powerlessness felt by the suicide bombers in the face of Muslim suffering may have been the most important factor in pushing these four young men towards this tragedy… The bombers saw no way of regaining their honor other than massive indiscriminate violence. They had adopted a particular kind of thinking which matched their anger and despair and hatred, which led them to ‘assert their dignity’ in the most destructive, cruel and shameful fashion possible.” (Pg. 140)
He contends, “When we look into the roots of the London bombings, we find four fairly ordinary young men who wanted change to happen quickly. They seem to have been led by an unshakeable sense of ‘powerlessness’ towards mass murder and suicide. They seem to have been drive to a special kind of immoral fanaticism by an acute empathy with the suffering of the umma [Muslim community] around the world, a highly developed sense of responsibility to their fellow Muslims, a profound religiosity, and fanatical and violent interpretation of Islam, and despair at the apparent immobility of British foreign policy… the war in Iraq was a critical factor in their radicalization.” (Pg. 161)
He concludes, I do not know how we can lay the foundations of this memorial without withdrawing from our war of occupation in Iraq, without offering a heartfelt apology for what we have done there, and without paying due restitution.” (Pg. 166)
This book (though obviously written from the far-“Left” perspective) will be of great interest to those wanting to know more about the 7/7 London bombings and their interpretation in Britain.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews