Download a PDF version of this leaflet here.

9/11: Are We Safer Now?

President Bush Says ‘We are staying on the offensive—striking terrorists abroad—so we do not have to face them here at home.’ [Republican National Convention 2004]
But the truth is that the invasion of Iraq, and the continuing occupation of Iraq, is increasing the risks of terrorism.

Spanish Intelligence Disagrees
In October 2003, Spanish police and intelligence contributed this statement to a Europol (EU Police) report on terrorism in the EU: ‘The Spanish Government’s support of the military intervention in Iraq by the United States and its Allies constitutes without doubt a further risk factor for Spain... armed Islamist groups tend to intensify the
number of violent attacks of as well as the destructive effects of these attacks. These would most probably be spectacular, blind, murderous, and indiscriminate terrorist actions intended to cause the highest possible number of victims.’ [Full report at http://tinyurl.com/5b7yc ] On 11 March 2004, train bombings in Madrid killed 190 people and wounded 1,800 others.

British Intelligence Disagrees
Before the war on Iraq, in a report dated 10 February 2003, the Joint Intelligence Committee, at the top of British intelligence, ‘assessed that al-Qaida 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.’ (Quoted in ‘Intelligence and Security Committee’ report on Iraq’s WMD, September 2003, p. 34, available from the Government at <http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/reports/isc/>)
British intelligence warned Tony Blair before the war that invading Iraq would make a 9/11 attack on Britain more, not less, likely. Yet he went ahead with a war which most of us were against.

The occupation of Iraq is wrong. We must withdraw US and British troops because they are not making Iraqis safer—in Najaf, or in Falluja, or even in Baghdad—and they are not making the West any safer either.

This leaflet is published by Justice Not Vengeance 0845 458 9571 29 Gensing Road, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex <www.j-n-v.org>

Download a PDF version of this leaflet here.

9/11: Which Way Forward? Relatives Speak Out

Responding Violently
President Bush says, ‘We are staying on the offensive—striking terrorists abroad—so we do not have to face them here at home.’ [Republican National Convention 2004] But not everyone in the US agrees.

9/11 Relatives Speak Out For Peace
‘We read enough of the news to sense that our government is heading in the direction of violent revenge, with the prospect of sons, daughters, parents, friends in distant lands dying, suffering, and nursing further grievances against us. ‘It is not the way to go. It will not avenge our son’s death. Not in our son’s name. Our son died a victim of an inhuman ideology. Our actions should not serve the same purpose. Let us grieve. Let us reflect and pray. Let us think about a rational response that brings real peace and justice to our world. But let us not as a nation add to the inhumanity of
our times.’
Phyllis and Orlando Rodriguez, who lost their son Greg in the World Trade Centre, released 15 September 2001

‘If you choose to respond to this incomprehensible brutality by perpetuating violence against other innocent human beings, you may not do so in the name of justice for my husband.’
Amber Amundson, who lost her husband Craig in the Pentagon, 25 September 2001

‘Terrorist impulses ferment in cultures of poverty, oppression and ignorance. The elimination of those conditions and the active promotion of a universal respect for human rights must become a national security priority.’
Professor Robin Theurkauf, who lost her husband Tom in the World Trade Centre, writing on 28 September 2001

September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows have a website <www.peacefultomorrows.org/> Their book Peaceful Tomorrows is available from JNV for £15 (inc. p&p). This leaflet is published by Justice Not Vengeance 0845 458 9571
29 Gensing Road, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex <www.j-n-v.org>