"The UK is at particular risk because it is the closest ally of the US, has deployed armed forces in the military campaigns to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Al-Qaeda's taped propaganda messages have repeatedly threatened attacks on the UK."

The report titled "Security, Terrorism and the UK" was drawn up by the chairman of the Terrorism Research Centre, at Scotland's prestigious University of St. Andrews, Paul Wilkinson and the University of Southampton's Professor Frank Gregory.

The above observation, contained in the Chatham House report, should come as no surprise but the very fact that it comes out from the Chatham House lends its credibility and weight to the argument that the London bombings are linked to the Blair policy of going to war in Iraq.

As far back as February 2002, intelligence chiefs had warned the Prime Minister that Al-Qaeda and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq.

Prime Minister Tony Blair and his members of the Cabinet do not like the report because they insisted that the July 7 attack had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. The report exposes them to their flawed policy on Iraq, which they thought they left behind. But at every step of security, "the Iraq factor" haunts them. The Iraqi war may not be the only factor, but to suggest that Iraqi war has nothing to do with the London bombings seems to fly in the face of reality

President Bush reportedly said that he waging war in Iraq to prevent terrorist attacks in mainland America. Unfortunately, the opposite appears to be true in respect of the UK. Terrorism has hit London. The failed bomb attacks in the London's transportation system on July 21 instilled fear among the commuters. More people now cycle their way to work in London. For the first time Bangladeshis in UK find terrorism staring at their face.

Searching questions
One British Muslim commentator during his interview on BBC World asked a very relevant question. Why is it that the British-born Muslims want to return to their homeland (say Pakistan) for a dose of extremism?

He argues that young Muslims of this generation are neither alienated from the mainstream nor suffer from economic malaise. They are educated (two of them were students and one teacher), have integrated with the British way of life, and are much richer than their earlier generations had been. He concludes that some of the young British-born Muslims are obviously troubled by the world politics of the current days. They perceive the way innocent Palestinians, Iraqis, and Afghans are murdered every day without impunity in the name of "terrorism" is not right and at that moment of their inflamed indignation and roused passions, they are victims to exploitation and recruitment by the extremists.

It is true that many terrorist attacks occurred before the Iraqi war and in that way one can argue that terrorist attacks occurred before the Iraqi war. The terrorist attacks occurred in 1993 at the World Trade Centre and in 1996 on the US troops quarters in Khobar (Saudi Arabia). The US Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked in 1998. The US warship was attacked, killing US soldiers in 2000 near Yemen. Then came the notorious 9/11.

Why did terrorist attacks occur in the first place before the Iraqi war?

Most experts believe that policy of the US towards the Middle East has been flawed because of its continuing support for its ally, Israel. Almost all Arabs in 21 countries find the US policy discriminating and unjust towards Palestinians. The anger and anguish of many Arabs swelled up and extremists have exploited them.

The flawed foreign policy of the US was impressively enumerated in a book titled "Why people hate America?" (2002) by Ziauddin Sardar and Meryl Wyn Davies.

According to the authors, this pertinent question was never answered by the Bush administration. They argue that the question has acquired the status of fact, a statement whose meaning can be assumed, rather than a basis for inquiry. The need to know has been transformed into "a reason not to know."

The bombings in Bali in 2002 were targeted against Australians because Australia supported the US in the war and sent troops to Afghanistan. The same phenomenon occurred in Spain in 2004 because it sent troops to Iraq. It seems all the countries including the Muslim majority ones that are pro-US are being targeted by the terrorists. Morocco, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are frequently in their sights.

The July 16 devastating al-Qaeda linked attacks at the Red Sea resort of Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt, that left at least 88 dead, have turned the spotlight once more on Osama bin Laden's deputy and Egypt's most shadowy son, Ayman al-Zawahiri. The al-Qaeda reportedly claimed swiftly that the attacks were a "part of the response against the global evil powers which are spilling the blood of Muslims."

In Britain, the attacks on the Egyptian sea resort sent chills through British people that they were not safe either at home or overseas (it is reported that some British nationals came to the resort for holiday after the July 7 attack in London, to get away from threat of terrorism).

Shoot to kill
One of the consequences of the London bombings was the shoot-to-kill policy that was activated. It claimed the death of an innocent 27-year old Brazilian electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes. It was not a tragedy, but simple cold-blooded murder in a country where capital punishment is outlawed.

Many believe that the death of Menezes was due to profiling a Brazilian as an Arab or Asian by the police because of their prejudices. Furthermore, there are many questions to answer by the London police. Why, for example, did plain-clothes policemen even allow him to board a busy bus and reach a tube station, if they had reasonable suspicions he was concealing a bomb under his winter coat? Did Menezes realise he was being pursued by police officers or did he run because he thought he was about to be mugged?

The death of Menezes has raised reasonable fears within Britain's minority Muslim communities that police, instead of being a protector, has become a killer. The long-held benign image of British police has been shattered. Furthermore police may find it difficult to get intelligence on extremist groups from minority groups after the horrible mistake. Although the British Foreign Secretary regretted the mistake to his counter-part in Brazil, the policy has not been reversed. Such knee-jerk reaction of police may alienate minority communities in Britain, according to one Muslim commentator.

There is a broader question in a liberal democratic country like Britain: whether Britain will surrender further civil liberties in the name of security. Britons instinctively resist the kind of security approach adopted in the US after 9/11. The question is does the shoot-to-kill policy is consistent with liberal democratic values that Prime Minister Blair has talked about so much after the London bombings?

Conclusion
Political observers believe that new terrorism-related laws in Britain cannot deport ideas or block them. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but must be exercised responsibly. The British authorities must ensure that draconian laws must be balanced with civil liberties. The tragic death of an innocent Brazilian at the hands of police on "mistaken identity" has instilled fears among minority communities that their safety, taken for granted, does not exist anymore with the police.

A recent poll published by The Times said three-quarters of the public thought bombings and security scares would be part of London life for the foreseeable future. They are asking now: who is responsible for such a state of affairs? Is the Blair government's active involvement in the Iraqi war causing all the problems?

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.