I wanted to comment on this article quoted below, and linked to on this site- it's at Norm's Blog and is printed in today's Guardian, but there isn't a comment opportunity there so I'm putting it here!
"Within hours of the bombs going off two weeks ago, the voices that one could have predicted began to make themselves heard with their root-causes explanations for the murder and maiming of a random group of tube and bus passengers in London. It was due to Blair, Iraq, illegal war and the rest of it. The first voices, so far as I know, were those of the SWP and George Galloway, but it wasn't very long - indeed no time at all, taking into account production schedules - before the stuff was spreading like an infestation across the pages of this newspaper (guardian), where it has remained."
The article goes on to say that the left wouldn't be apologists for the BNP and criticise asylum policy when the BNP were carrying out attacks so why be apologists for Islamist terrorists?
The answer to this is that the cause of the BNP attacks is not asylum policy but a media that feed people's ignorance of asylum seekers with negative stories. Granting asylum to victims of oppression is a valid policy, killing civilians for oil in Iraq is not!
Norm goes on to say that the left does not criticise the propaganda that feeds Islamist terrorism. That is categorically not true and a deliberate slur. It does criticise the religious extremism but equally points out Western foreign policy extremism. The right however will only criticise one side. To them it is one side only at fault. Livingstone calls it two sides of the same coin, i.e both sides are in the wrong.
The left are not apologists for either side, they criticise both. Just because the left criticise Western foreign policy doesn't mean that justifies Islamist terrorists, it just explains it. Whereas the right ARE apologists for Western foreign policy.