Government rejects war link to bombings

Today the Chatham House organisation (a 'think tank') concluded that the war in Iraq has put Britain at an increased risk from terrorist activity. As I said the other day, this should be blindingly obvious to everyone, yet the government is rejecting it.

It is easy to see why they might find it advantageous to do this of course, since it is a war that they started and have always supported. It is interesting to see their reaction as more people come to conclude that they are obviously wrong. In the article Jack Straw offers no proof that Iraq was irrelevant. The example of the bombs in Turkey that he gives as proof that terrorists don't just target countries that went into Iraq is irrelevant since they were Kurds, and as such they have a completely different agenda to the London bombers.

You can't lump all 'terrorists' together when you try to justify your foreign policy. It is a plainly ridiculous thing to say, and Jack Straw should have known better. He can't though, of course. There is no 'evidence' to justify Iraq precisely because claiming it had no effect on terrorism is a lie.

Even the most 'New Labour' friendly member of the public must realise that when the secret service said this exact thing (that the Iraq war will boost terrorism), there must be something to it. Worryingly, not all people seem to, but hopefully they'll be convinced soon. How many more people have to die before people realise what this government and its supporters got us into?