Don't mention the (Iraq) War
Regarding this utter shite published in the Times:
What a shamefully execrable article this is. I feel embarrassed for the writer (Gerard Baker) that he should expect to get paid for churining out this kind of low-level garbage. However, given that its been published in The Times (Rupert Murdoch's organ of axe-grinding lampoonery), I won't be surprised to find out that he will be paid handsomely for characteristic Times-guano.
First of all he calls "the Galloways and the Kennedys" opportunistic but has left out Howard from the list. Howard is, in the public perception and following his performace in the last general election, synonymous with political opportunism of the most crass kind. By not including him in his list, the writer renders his loyalties transparent.
So now we know who he speaks for, the rest of his peice is an exercise in dangerous and insulting conjecture. How does he know that if England had not invaded Iraq that there would not have been a London bombing? How does he claim to know the bomber's motives so well that he can speak on their behalf?
To pass glibly over events in Islamic history as providing enough pretext for Islamists to bomb London is to ignore sentiments that are common to most Brits of all types of political/religious/racial persuasion. That sentiment is this: the invasion and the occupation of Iraq by US and British forces is illegal and, given the status quo, murderous and destructive. The actions of the bombers are not representative of anyone but themselves, but perhaps an infinitely better article would have been to acknowledge that Iraq angers not only angry young bombers, but also normal work-a-day folk irrespective of religion and race. And that is the reason why the large majority of British people are deeply ashamed of Britain's recent history in Iraq.
Whether The Times likes it or not, no amount of convoluted op-eds like this one will be able to whitewash this fact away.