Thursday, May 23, 2013

The terrorism that never was

A friend from abroad asked me about the disturbing attack in Woolwich. Disturbing indeed, for various reasons. And senseless. As if the responsibility of Britain's disturbing and equally senseless wars rested exclusively on the shoulders of somebody collecting funds for his perceived heroes. Just as disturbing, however, is the government exploitation of the event. The defence secretary is quoted as saying: "We are not going to be cowed by this kind of terrorist action", thereby completely devaluing the term terrorist as entirely meaningless. The BBC quotes the prime minister's support for a passer-by who talked about the attacker losing his "war" in London. Whilst stating that "one of the best ways to defeat terrorism is to go about our normal lives", he does the opposite and cancels a meeting in Paris to hurry back to Britain to attend a meeting of the anti-terrorism committee Cobra.
In news reports, the attacker's motives are quoted but not meaningfully discussed. His statement that innocent civilians get killed daily in Afghanistan and other theatres of wars is sadly all too true, and many suffer their fate as a result of remote controlled drones. Since those drones have now also been confirmed to have killed four US citizens, US president Obama is shortly going to make a statement justifying their continued use whilst already having pronounced that his country will "stand resolute" with Britain following the Woolwich attack. Needless to add, but for the common finger-pointing at Muslims, that justified motives do not excuse aberrant action and taking out frustrations on a misled and misguided solider will neither stop the slaughter nor aid the victims.

Once the politicians and news channels had hyped the story out of all proportion, it didn't take long for reprisal attacks on mosques and individual Muslims who were even less guilty of the knife attack than the killed soldier was of the overall conduct of the war in Afghanistan in which he had at least been previously deployed. Muslim organisations responded with messages of condemnation for the attack and the typical apologetic "it wasn't us, please don't hurt us on account of it", some even going as far as asserting their support for British soldiers serving in Afghanistan. Reading all the hype one might be forgiven for thinking that London is a quiet and peaceful little town shook to the core by this violent occurrence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Putting things in perspective, we are dealing with a knife attack perpetrated by two individuals not acting on behalf of any group or organisation and with a single victim. There are between one and two hundred fatal gun and knife crimes in London every year. The motives differ, but the none of them is victimless. There are in excess of three thousand non-fatal knife crimes leading to injuries. Each and every one of them is brutal. For the whole of the UK there were nearly thirty thousand offences committed involving knives. If the prime minister were to return from abroad each time somebody wielded a knife in an attack in London, never mind the other major British cities, he might as well stay at home, not that this would be a bad thing. If every fatal knife attack is now upgraded to an act of terror, then embassies around the world should issue urgent advice to their citizens against visiting the UK.

Do the churches issue an apology for every violent killing in Northern Ireland? Do they distance themselves from the one of the Woolwich attackers who quoted the Bible? Do animal rights groups issue an apology for every violent animal rights campaigner targetting research labs? Should all men collectively apologise for sex crimes? All adults for pedophilia? After all, such crimes are every bit as horrific as the one David Cameron called "deeply shocking". Is he also shocked by the high level of birth defects in Iraqi babies due to the illegal use of radioactive weapons by US and UK forces? More importantly, will the security services apologise for their repetitive incompetence? It appears that both attackers were known to them as has been the case with nearly every previous "terrorist" attack perpetrated, so obviously they're are not giving us our money's worth in protection whilst spending ample time and resources spying on innocent citizens. Maybe, letting things happen serves them as a welcome argument for increased funding?

It is high time that this whole anti-terrorism business is becoming the object of a more focused discussion. How much of our fought-for freedoms do we wish to surrender to an ever-more encroaching government on the excuse that the terror threat is alive and kicking and that a potential terrorist could be lurking at every street corner? We already have more surveillance cameras in London than in any other capital on the globe? Whom do they benefit and how did they make the people of Woolwich more safe? What role do the security services play in fermenting the terror threat? How do we define terrorism, both at home and abroad? Without attempting to answer these questions and many more we will completely lose touch with reality and become open prey to those in authority who want us to live in permanent fear in order to let them exploit their positions - and us - unchecked.


At 24 May 2013 at 13:50, Blogger Unknown said...

Most excellent read Brother x thank you for this great insight and light on this event

At 28 May 2013 at 12:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We were waiting for a posting from you because we know that you will not miss out the most important point “knife crimes in UK”. Going to the part “Putting things in perspective..........” you are absolutely right. We admit that those who claim to speak for us – Muslims, baffle us. Every time we have approached these “elected speakers”, they have refused to answer or address our concerns. We informed them decades ago that the insanity that the historical terrorist, UK was propagating in our Ummah will lead to deaths & violence but they couldn’t be bothered. They were too busy getting titles/non-portfolio ministries aka whore/prostitution ministries etc. We even wrote to racial equality group/department saying we would like to file a complaint against the butcher of Bagdad, UK’s supreme war criminal butcher blair but we were informed “You cannot do that because he is the government”
How many times have we heard “they are the government and they can do what they want” BS.
We would like to leave with food for thought. The UK terrorist government is asking/supporting/paying for:
Car bombs, beheading, use of chemical weapons, mass murder of Syrians/Iraqis/Pakistanis/Yemenis/Bahrainis –MASS MURDER and this hideous revolting scum wants to lecture us on TERRORISM?
It is UK that is responsible for the TERRORISM globally when will Muslims and other states with an ounce of decency address that. Is it usaid, corruption, threat that is stopping you? The aid that you get is less than 2 cents/$! Show some respect for yourselves, you damn fools, you have trillion times that being FREE and your words will be your own
How Obama and Al-Qaeda Became Syrian Bedfellows
by Shamus Cooke
“While the U.S. is pouring arms into the jihadist-controlled areas, they have also downplayed the atrocities committed by these rebels, which are well documented on Youtube and include a multitude of war crimes that include beheadings, group execution of prisoners, ethnic cleansing, and the recent episode where a famous rebel commander was videotaped mutilating a dead Syrian solider and eating his heart.

At 28 May 2013 at 16:17, Blogger Mustaqim said...

It seems there is even more to it than meets the eye: A film maker has lately put out a 2-part analysis of the video shown on the news -
showing that there was large-scale editing and the whole event looks in fact stage-managed, with no real blood and plenty of fake blood, shifting camera angles, changing body positions of victim, and, worst of all, EDL-involvement!
Following the publication of these videos the BBC have removed their item (previously shown on ITV, and they don't often share sources!) entitled: Woolwich attack: "Footage shows man with bloodied hands", which for several days now reads "This content doesn't seem to be working". Such a response almost serves to verify that the claims of an edited video of a staged event are in fact true.
The involvement of MI5/6 also has become more pronounced, not only did they "try to recruit one of the attackers" as previously claimed, they actually saved him fro being executed in Kenya, so he was a long-term asset of theirs. We don't expect the parliamentary security committee or the "independent" police complaints commission to come up with any answers, and the true facts are not likely to emerge any time soon, what is clear, however, is that the propaganda role of the media must come under closer scrutiny. Sadly, we live in the facebook generation and most, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, believe every word that is being broadcast by the official mass media.

At 10 June 2013 at 11:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Food for thought.
Spies need more oversight, not new powers
by nsnbc

There now appears to be little doubt that the two Wool¬wich sus¬pects were well and truly on the MI5 radar. It has been repor¬ted that they had been tar¬gets for at least 8 years and that Michael Ade¬bolajo had been approached to work as an agent by MI5 as recently as 6 months ago.
One of his friends, Abu Nusay¬bah, recor¬ded an inter¬view for BBC’s News¬night pro¬gramme last week, only to be arres¬ted by counter-terrorism police imme¬di¬ately after¬wards. He stated that Ade¬bolajo had been tor¬tured and threatened with rape after his arrest in Kenya en route to Somalia, and that this treat¬ment may have flipped him into more viol¬ent action. Indeed, the tale gets ever mur¬kier, with reports yes¬ter¬day stat¬ing that Ade¬bolajo was snatched by the SAS in Kenya on the orders of MI5.
Other inform¬a¬tion has since been released by the organ¬isa¬tion Cage¬Pris¬on¬ers indic¬at¬ing that Adebolajo’s fam¬ily and friends had also been har¬rassed to pres¬sur¬ize him into report¬ing to MI5.
All of which obvi¬ates the early claims that Ade¬bolajo was either a “lone wolf” or a low-priority tar¬get. It cer¬tainly indic¬ates to me that MI5 will have at the very least been mon¬it¬or¬ing Adebolajo’s com¬mu¬nic¬a¬tions data, espe¬cially if they were try¬ing to recruit him as a source. If that indeed turns out to have been the case, then without doubt MI5 will also have been inter¬cept¬ing the con¬tent of his com¬mu¬nic¬a¬tions, to under¬stand his think¬ing and assess his access. Any¬thing less would have been slip¬shod — a derel¬ic¬tion of duty — and all this could and should have been done under the exist¬ing terms of RIPA.


Post a Comment

<< Home