| J'accuse |
|
|
| Friday, 07 July 2006 | |
|
One year ago “shock and awe” visited London. Not quite the same scale as that seen over Baghdad but not exactly unrelated. MPACUK had warned of a fundamental disconnect between the government’s foreign policy and the feeling of large swathes of British Muslims right up until July 6th 2005 and then it happened, the event we all dreaded but very few were surprised by.
The inevitable media frenzy that followed of course looked for a reason behind the devastating attack. Could it be social depravation? How about the Madrassas? Maybe something in the Quran? And of course the omnipotent guiding-hand of Al Qaeda?
Then came the killing of an innocent man on the tube by under-cover armed police. After they killed this person they went on to assassinate his character, allowing lies about his clothing, his reaction and even his immigration status to circulate unchallenged. Then a second wave of attacks that, thankfully, failed. Getting to the truth of the matter is important both for the memory of the victims and also for the future. Britain’s Muslims would also like to ask some questions. Why has the government decided that an independent inquiry is too much hassle? How dysfunctional are the intelligence services? Are they beyond repair? Are the police a transparent organisation? What is fuelling the terror attacks? Instead of trying to get to the bottom of the truth the government and in particular Tony Blair has deployed the tactic of giving the impression of consultation whilst having his own agenda and ignoring any advice given. Remember the prominent Muslims being led into 10 Downing St. like little ducks being lined up to be shot? Now the lecture by “honest Tone” that the moderate Muslims in Britain should police the country on the lookout for extremists. Why weren’t such words of wisdom lavished on Britain’s Catholics in the 70’s or 80’s? Three things seem to stand out by the government’s reaction or lack of. Firstly despite such public interest the government has refused a public inquiry despite calls for one from so many quarters including most recently, Sadiq Khan MP (surely the best of the four Muslim M.P’s). Secondly, the refusal to implement so many recommendations of the taskforces set up by the government. A la Carte policy-making and little or no justification. Lastly the curious case of Tony Blair to seem to be unable to acknowledge the role of British Foreign policy. Now we all know that practically since the Suez crisis this country’s foreign policy has effectively been outsourced to a firm in Washington D.C called the US government. This trend has increased to the point where subsequent British Foreign Secretaries under Labour seem to have undergone a Vulcan style mind-meld with their US counterparts. Are we an independent nation or not? Slavishly obeying the whims of the neo-cons in Washington is what led us into this mess in the first place. Tony Blair’s lecture to the Muslim community is the old diversionary tactic. Talk about anything but Foreign Policy. The trouble is the truth keeps rearing its ugly head. From opinion polls of Muslims to videos made by the bombers, Foreign Policy is not just a theme but the theme. Blair’s government is not just mistaken in ignoring this most genuine of grievance it is wholly negligent in trying to make political capital out of such a serious matter. Does he honestly think that Britain’s Muslims don’t give a damn about 100,000 Iraqis being slaughtered in an illegal war or that Palestine is being illegally occupied by a fascist state propped up by the US and now just to prove that “stupid is as stupid does”, Iran is being threatened with military action whilst Israel is free to continue to stockpile her nuclear and chemical arsenals? Of course Britain’s Muslims should make a much bigger effort to integrate into mainstream British society. MPACUK has campaigned vociferously for just such integration in the past. Muslim institutions need better leadership and more democratic accountability but we do not need lectures from a man whose sole political legacy is a war whose effects are still being felt not only in Iraq but also in this country and is too cowardly to confess to his part in the motivation behind the July 2005 bombings. Readers have left 10 comments.
kal:
Quote
Spot on. One of the bombs went off last year on the train I normally catch.Luckily I was not on it as I was catching a flight. Another bomb went off outside my daughters' college. We were terrified until we found out she was safe.The stories of the victims brought tears welling up to our eyes.The bit that the mendacious Blair doesn't understand is that normal people have the same reaction when we see the carnage in Iraq or Afghanistan; Palestine or Chechniya. Chechniya is not Blair's doing, but he's made us perpetrators in Iraq, participants in Afghanistan and strongly implicated in Palestine.The hell that is Iraq was created by Blair and Bush. When we connect with the stories of 7/7 we can connect with the horror that is many times magnified in Baghdad.For Blair to argue that we are not paying the 'blood price' for supporting Bush's foreign policy, with ordinary peoples' blood is so barefaced a lie as to be nauseating in its arrogance.
(1)
2006-07-07 12:09:13
Alan:
Quote
" Now the lecture by “honest Tone” that the moderate Muslims in Britain should police the country on the lookout for extremists. Why weren’t such words of wisdom lavished on Britain’s Catholics in the 70’s or 80’s? "
Are MPAC and some "Muslims" EVER going to "GET IT" regarding the differences between terrorism linked to the Northern Ireland situation in the 1970s/80s/90s and modern day International Islamic terrorism ? Are MPAC and some "Muslims" ever going to take a moment to realise how intentionally innacurate, lazy, stupid and ridiculous their comparisons are and stop making them ? The Northern Ireland situation WAS NOT "CATHOLIC TERRORISM". It was not a RELIGION based conflict but a POLITICAL one. There is no comparison between Irish terrorism the very real phenomenon of International Islamic Terrorism. The roots of terrorism in Northern Ireland were associated with issues of CIVIL RIGHTS, ETHNIC CLEANSING and a POLITICAL TERRITORIAL DISPUTE involving SOVEREIGNTY OF THE AREA. "Catholics" and "Protestants" were being defined by the ancestry of their family surname, what school they went to, what street they lived in, even though they may have been aethists with no religious belief. The origins of the situation were in very real, even institutionalised, civil rights abuses and very real civil disturbances. People were being actively, openly and blatantly discriminated against for jobs and public services simply on the basis of their (real or percieved) religion. Unctrolled violence and ethnic cleansing was occouring between neighbors, with families being firebombed in their homes and whole streets of families being attacked, chased from their homes and buildings being set alight. The level of violence between members of the public so bad that the ARMY had to be put onto the streets to control law and order. (There is absolutly, equivically no comparable situation in modern Britain involving Muslims. Is the Army on the streets of Beeston or Tower Hamlets to prevent daily acts of mass civil disturbance ?) Terrorists were NOT Catholic or Protestant. They were Republican/Nationalist or Unionist/Loyalist. They were not defined by their religion. They were defined by their political beliefs, on their belief of the soveregnty of the region whether Northern Ireland should be part of the British Union, or whether it should be part of a United Ireland. Preists and vicars did not brainwash and encourage Catholics or Protestants into becoming terrorists. In contrast however it is proven that certain extremist imans and religious preachers have brainwashed muslims into becomeing terrorists and jihadis. In many cases, victims of terrorism, were not victims because of their religion or lack of it ( al a Kaffirs and Ifidels), but either because of their politics or position in the political situation, i.e. victims of Republican/Nationalist terrorist might be any or no religion, but were targeted as their role as a policemen, soldier, prison guard or builders what was relevant was their position as apparatus of the Unionist/Loyalist state. Unlike International Islamic terrorism, where cries of "Alluh Akbar", the Koran and videod prayers may be part of the terrorist act, there were no terrorists making statements holding a bible for posterity, or screaming "God Is Great" as they carried out their acts of terrorism. Whereas Irish terrorism was conducted by people who may have been defined by a religion, International Islamic Terrorism is utterly defined by their religion. Get real. For once in your lives, start to look at things without your religious prism. Please stop trotting out this lazy comparison and deal with the real issues.
(2)
2006-07-07 14:57:27
Pir:
Quote
Alan,
What mpac don't get is that you are a paid employee of the security services whose job it is to spread disinformation. Your arguments are as shallow as your concern for the welfare of this country. You are what in a previous era people called,a concentration camp guard;"only doing my job guv" Prove that you have a belief in what you have written here, by identifying yourself to the mpac moderator & debate in the open. You & me, son....
(3)
2006-07-07 21:20:43
Paul:
Quote
Wow Pir, you really squashed Alan's arguments with that one didn't u? So anyone who disagress with you is an 'employee of the security services" that is such an excellent rebuttal of his arguments isn't it? Now are you actually going to address his point and tell us how Islamic terrorism is the same as Northern Ireland? If it is then why don't we send the Army into Beeston then? Remind me how many IRA/Loyalist terrorists cried 'god is great' before killing innocents, they didn't because their campaign was not justified by religon.
(4)
2006-07-08 06:16:29
ScottSA:
Quote
What hogwash. This good cop bad cop routine is ridiculous. Murderers kill innocents and then so-called "moderates" ride in tsk tsking with "solutions" which happen to precisely correspond to the aims of the murderers. If religion dictates that people cannot put their first allegiance to the state, then what in the hell are they doing in the state?
Its not Britain's welfare you are worried about, its the enemies of Britain you are worried about. Your allegiance lies with Islam, no matter what. You people should remember why you left the shitholes you came from instead of turning the west into a mirror image of it.
(5)
2006-07-09 16:10:04
Rebuttal:
Quote
Alan,
Thank you for commenting on the article. You seem a little confused so sit down, read this and maybe it’s not too late for you to learn something. Firstly you must have been living under a rock in the 70’s to 90’s. The conflict between the Republicans and Nationalists has always been referred to as “sectarian”. What do you think that means Alan? Let’s put it another way, how many Protestants do you think were in the IRA and how many Catholics in the UDA or UFF? Secondly, your assertion “The roots of terrorism in Northern Ireland were associated with issues of CIVIL RIGHTS, ETHNIC CLEANSING and a POLITICAL TERRITORIAL DISPUTE involving SOVEREIGNTY OF THE AREA.” Could also describe the situation in Palestine. Lastly, your assertion that priests weren’t involved in the conflict is plain wrong. Look up “Father Jim Chesney” or “Sean McManus” and there many, many more on both sides. Your accustion about lazy comparisons seems a little lame now doesn’t it? “We have just enough religion to make us hate but not enough to make us love one another.” Jonathan Swift (Irish writer.)
(6)
2006-07-09 20:01:14
TheCure:
Quote
So what have we got, dumb, dumber, and even more dumb (Alan, Paul, ScotSA)! What does SA stand for Stupid Ass****!
It's really quite simple. It's very hard to brain wash someone with 'The kafir is killing Muslims in Palestine, Afghaistan, and Iraq etc' if it's not actually happening. None of you mention this at all. As if, you come to Britain, now just forget about all those being killed by UK and their allies. A lot of people like to live in Britain, but don't like UK/US/Israel killing inocent people. Regardless of religion. And their are a lot of British born and raised Muslims. A life is a life, worth the same anywhere on the planet. A UK citizen dying is no less or a crime than someone dying in Palestin, just because you say 'oh it was a terrorist' (how can you tell from an F-16?). You cannot see further than your nose, you believe everything you see on TV and in the newspapers. But the reality is something quite different. Just part of the silent majority that do nothing and do not speak out regarding their countries actions, and so are complicit!
(7)
2006-07-11 06:46:23
Dan:
Quote
History shows us that more people have been killed by Christians than Muslims. The illegal war in Iraq was unleashed by Bush and Blair because "God told them to do it". This is a clear act of Christian terrorism. Today, pro-Western tyrants are terrorizing Muslims in the Middle East, in what can be called "political terrorism". People like Alan will repeat Bush and Blair's "they hate our freedoms" con. Yet it is Bush and Blair stripping away our freedoms daily, without resistance. What I am interested in is the "anti-Islam" brigade to give a definition of terrorism, because should they do so, they will find that acts they support will indeed be defined as terrorism.
(8)
2006-07-11 20:02:37
its just not cricket.:
Quote
Interesting points made but when did political violence become more legitimate than religious violence?
Some how this kind of nonsence that Republican "terrorists" were gentleman who played by the rules is rubbish,try asking the victims of Omagh,Enniskillen ,Warrington ete etc about how nice the perpetrators were. The current issue of "terrorism" is partly religious and mainly political.If you think you can invade countries and not feel the consequences then you are in cloud cuckoo land.I personally agree with the BNPs manifesto of "Keep Britain out of foreign wars and keep foreign wars out of Britain".
(9)
2006-07-12 02:28:31
Curious Reader:
Quote
Scott SA needs to learn something about colonialism and its effects on modern day,"third world countries," which weren't so "third world" and poverty stricken until they were colonised ! Also, perhaps he should find out a bit more about his own history and the "lovely" open sewers that once existed in the West as well as the abysmal conditions and squalor that great numbers of people lived under in Victorian Britain, poorhouses, etc.
Poverty is not a crime. Economically disadvantaged people are not the problem. Ignorant, bigoted and arrogant people, woefully ignorant of their own history and its effects on others, however, are!
(10)
2006-08-04 21:59:18
|

















