The detrimental effects of the London bombings far out weigh the possible positive ones for the British Government. You state that it was neccessary for a staged terrorist attack to introduce ID cards for all of the British public, and in order to give Blair and Bush the moral reasoning and support to attack Iran...wrong. Firstly the government could have pushed throught the ID cards without the terrorist attack in London, they would have just watered them down like they have done anyway. Did they gain any new laws that restrict civil liberties? No have tried to introduce three month periods of detention for terrorist suspects, but once again the proposals have been watered down. If the British government had carried out terrorist acts on their own people I am sure that they would have thought through the possible gains of an attack. I don’t see any, a few extra armed policemen around London, hardly a gain that would be worth an atrocity being committed against ones own country!
Someone also stated that perhaps it was in order to gain support for an attack on Iran. Firstly the 9/11 attacks against America may have won over American public support for an attack on Iraq, however that rapidly petered out. Would the British government really follow the same path and carry out a terrorist attack on their own people in order to win support for a war against Iran, when the support is clearly not stable and will result in plummeting ratings for the government. Also the terrorist attacks someone argued, resulted in a growth of support for the government as the country came together, wrong. Ratings fell, Blair as Prime Minister had always protected the public from terrorism. After the London bombings it seemed as if he could not protect theBritish public anymore. Put yourself in his position, would you want to be seen as the Prime Minister who couldn’t defend the people he is supposed to be protecting? Well I certainly wouldn’t, it doesn’t bode well for re-election prospects. Also economically speaking since the attack the economy has not been performing as well as it had been prior to the July bombings, tourism fell massively. For a government who prides itself on the strength and growth of the economy and the defence of this country, it seems absurd that they would attack the two pinnacles of their own foundation.
Obviously there is no way anyone can prove indefinately that the attack was terrorists trying to strike back at Britain, but consider the evidence, the negative effects of the bombing clearly outweigh the possible positive effects for the government. I fear people who believe the government was responsible for terrorist atrocities in their own country will only see sense when a ’dirty’ bomb or nuclear device is used in a large city by terrorists resulting in casualties in their millions. Even then some will still blame the very people who are protecting us from these attacks.
The detrimental effects of the London bombings far out weigh the possible positive ones for the British Government. You state that it was neccessary for a staged terrorist attack to introduce ID cards for all of the British public, and in order to give Blair and Bush the moral reasoning and support to attack Iran...wrong. Firstly the government could have pushed throught the ID cards without the terrorist attack in London, they would have just watered them down like they have done anyway. Did they gain any new laws that restrict civil liberties? No have tried to introduce three month periods of detention for terrorist suspects, but once again the proposals have been watered down. If the British government had carried out terrorist acts on their own people I am sure that they would have thought through the possible gains of an attack. I don’t see any, a few extra armed policemen around London, hardly a gain that would be worth an atrocity being committed against ones own country!
Someone also stated that perhaps it was in order to gain support for an attack on Iran. Firstly the 9/11 attacks against America may have won over American public support for an attack on Iraq, however that rapidly petered out. Would the British government really follow the same path and carry out a terrorist attack on their own people in order to win support for a war against Iran, when the support is clearly not stable and will result in plummeting ratings for the government. Also the terrorist attacks someone argued, resulted in a growth of support for the government as the country came together, wrong. Ratings fell, Blair as Prime Minister had always protected the public from terrorism. After the London bombings it seemed as if he could not protect theBritish public anymore. Put yourself in his position, would you want to be seen as the Prime Minister who couldn’t defend the people he is supposed to be protecting? Well I certainly wouldn’t, it doesn’t bode well for re-election prospects. Also economically speaking since the attack the economy has not been performing as well as it had been prior to the July bombings, tourism fell massively. For a government who prides itself on the strength and growth of the economy and the defence of this country, it seems absurd that they would attack the two pinnacles of their own foundation.
Obviously there is no way anyone can prove indefinately that the attack was terrorists trying to strike back at Britain, but consider the evidence, the negative effects of the bombing clearly outweigh the possible positive effects for the government. I fear people who believe the government was responsible for terrorist atrocities in their own country will only see sense when a ’dirty’ bomb or nuclear device is used in a large city by terrorists resulting in casualties in their millions. Even then some will still blame the very people who are protecting us from these attacks.