Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Because it offends me...

A couple of days ago I was having a lunchtime beer with someone I used to work with. I forget the reason now but the subject of Islamic terrorism cropped up in the conversation and my chum made reference to those '‘Islamic nutters” running around the country.

Now the thing is my friend comes from a London Irish background and as a kid was no stranger to being part of an ethnic group caught up in a War on Terror and all that goes with it

As part of the ‘bigging up’ of the current terror threat being carried out by the media, politicians and the security forces, history is now being seriously rewritten and ‘IRA’ bombs are being portrayed as somehow less lethal than ‘Islamic’ ones

but they seemed pretty scary at the time


And there are plenty of parallels between the War on Terror then and now. Parallels such as…
  • Bullshit terror trials that are all about securing convictions at all costs, if not of genuine terrorists then of people ‘just like them’.
  • Security service infiltration of terror cells and complicity in terrorist incidents taken to such an absurd level that you can’t even be sure if those terror cells actually included any real terrorists
  • Media misrepresentation of the causes of the conflict as being all about religion and not about more earthly concerns such a colonialism, tribalism and exclusion
Yeah right, the IRA and the Loyalists were killing each other and lots of other people over disagreements about theology

For fuck’s sake

So, I gently (he is a friend) chided him for not showing a little more empathy with another group of people caught up in the same kind of fucked up mess as his friends and family were

I also mentioned a few stories about the activities of dubious Muslim converts that may, and I stressed may, be examples of a Third Hand deliberately ‘stirring the pot’. The damp squib that was the British Oppression demo was my most recent example

His reaction was interesting and echoed advice I have been given by a couple of other friends over the last few months

'I wouldn't get involved in stuff like that. They'll just be a lot of grief and heartache for no profit to yourself'

I explained that I was concerned about these issues because they offended me and offended my now curiously misplaced sense of what Britishness is (was?) supposed to be all about

And then I changed the subject.




My friend's reaction was interesting because by no stretch of the imagination could he be considered a ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ and he pretty much buys into the current War on Islamic Terror paradigm. However, in spite of that he, and people like him, still acknowledge the possible existence of shady bastards engaged in shady activities who could really fuck up your day if you piss them off enough

He might also be talking sense

And on the subject of the Irish–Islamofascist connection, another Irish chum sent me this snippet of news from the Emerald Republic…

"I see that they found 23 people stuck to the walls and ceiling of Dublin Airport yesterday. Irish Muslim extremists are believed to be responsible, having set off the world's first 'No-Nails'-bomb...."


-

And whilst I’m engaged in some serious consideration about a future content change of this blog to exclusively include pictures of daisies and puppy dogs and nothing else, a passing observation on the 21/7 trial verdict earlier this week...

One of the ‘bombers’ Ramzi Mohammed tried to do whatever he was doing in my local tube station and whilst I wasn’t in the Oval tube at the time I’m acutely conscious that I or someone I cared for could easily have been.

It was the fact that an alleged bomber tried to blow up (sic.) my local tube station then legged it down the bottom of the street where I live, combined with the execution of Jean Charles de Menezes down the road the next day, that really brought home the fact that this War on Terror stuff was taking place literally all around me. It is not an abstract, far away concern and I don’t criticise and deride the ‘Official Narrative’ of what is going on lightly.

One aspect of the conviction of the 21/7 ‘bombers’ that has not been discussed or explained is that the bombers were convicted of ‘conspiracy to murder’. Charges of ‘conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life’ were dropped at the end of the trial

That needs explaining. As does the fact that the jury took a week to convict them

But don’t expect any fucking news channel to shed any light on what significance there is, if any, of the explosions charges being dropped

What they’ve done instead is to bang out headlines that unashamedly claim that the four were convicted as bombers


edit: just to be clear on this point, and as re-iterated by a couple of comments to this post...

The 21/7 'Bombers' were NOT convicted of attempting to set off bombs on 21/7.
NONE of the mainstream media are making this clear


now, as an experiment with dissonance in action, why not try and explain that to a non Conspiraloon
and see how they react


"Hi! Barry Scott here! Next time you are conspiring to engineer the complete and total collapse of Western Civilisation by attacking South London tube stations with devices made from everyday household ingredients don't forget to include the oxidising power of Cillit BANG!! in your rucksack!" (now available in Jihadi size)


And yet again, for the umpteenth time, we now find out that the security forces were all over these supposed ‘clean skin’ terrorists long before they launched their attack

And yet again, for the umpteenth time, the ‘cock-up not a conspiracy’ card is being played and instead of serious questions being asked about what ‘our’ security forces are playing at we’re being told that it’s a capacity issue that requires application of even more resources and even stricter laws and everyone with doubts should shut the fuck up

-

And whilst on the subject of strange goings-on at the Oval, I passed this thing sitting on the street opposite the station the other day




It was attached to a cable that snaked its way through a church yard and into a white van marked SISLink parked on a side street. SISLink's website indicates that the company is involved in outside broadcasts. Fine, I doubt if there is anything super sinister about that.

What did surprise me was how little interest passers-by were showing in the thing. People have become so accustomed to and
blasé
about crap like this sprouting up everywhere that it now barely registers. In fact, people only started paying attention to it once I started to photograph it - man with camera unusual, weird directional microwave thingy on tripod not unusual

That's not good

.

26 comments:

Merkin said...

Good series of articles - don't be intimidated - just say what you think.

paul said...

top post,if you can't talk about things like these then the anti terrorists will have won!!

Anonymous said...

I hope you don't start posting solely about puppies, as much as I like puppies. This blog is an oasis of rationality in an increasingly Alice in Wonderland country. Keep it up!

As for the charges of conspiracy to cause explosions been dropped - reading between the lines, this would appear to be because of the testimony of Hans Michaels. What he actually said doesn't appear to have been reported anywhere. I wonder why?

Sinclair said...

Of the two original charges (as reported soley by the BBC) against the 6 accused in the 'July 21st' trial, the remaining charge upon which the 4 were convicted was:

That, between 1 Jan and 30 July 2005, the men conspired together "and with other persons unknown to murder other persons"

Now who were these "other persons unknown"?

In this Met police operation (the biggest since the Second World War), shouldn't these "other persons unknown" be rounded up? These are people who should be in prison for 40 years, shurely?

Note that the police have detained 37 other "known" people connected with 6 accused, including Fardoza Abdullah(i) - the wife/girlfriend of Yassin Omar, who was charged on 27th September 2006, accused of helping one of the alleged conspirators evade arrest and failing to disclose information about him, even though Omar had already been in police custody for 14 months!

After Fardoza Abdullah(i) appeared in Westminster Magistrates Court on 4th October 2006, she was then remanded in custody to appear at Woolwich Crown Court on Friday October 6 2006. On the very same day (6/10/06), the trial of the 6 'July 21st' accused was postponed from the start date of Monday 9th October 2006 to January 15th 2007.

For those of us who have been following the J21 case, this is but yet another unexplained anomaly in the proceedings.

Shutter said...

That, between 1 Jan and 30 July 2005, the men conspired together "and with other persons unknown to murder other persons"

Paradoxically we have had Terrist laws being introduced by the cart load, and yet these guys are charged under an offence which some lawyer chappy will tell us goes back to the time when we sued to use ducking stools.

Ditto Explosive Substances for other charge was 18ddidle.

But fill up your hard drive with jihadi videos and holiday snaps of New York and you are banged up for 30 years pal.

Contra to Stefs regression to puppies I have a pal who suggests re-naming .jpg files "Lolita gang raped by dogs" - but THAT is not to be recommended.

Wolfie said...

I was wondering about that lengthy jury deliberation period too.

The missing charges as well.

Then there's the retrial that's in the works.

After all the hype and horror in the Press I'm left with a hollow feeling.

All the more reason to listen to your friend perhaps?

You know magicians don't really pull coins from behind your ear or make rabbits appear out of nowhere - they distract you with something more interesting while the action is elsewhere.

So what's the real action?

You know after the pathetic terror weekend I got back in my office and the guy who sits next to me who lives way out East told me that the barmaid at his local was bundled into a car by a group of black and Asian men that weekend as she was locking-up at one am. Taken to some waste ground and gang-raped.

That's terrorism.

Stef said...

So what's the real action?

Good question

Apprentice said...

hell's teeth Woolfie, you are so right.

I am really very sorry that I do only post the equivalent of puppies and daisies, but after living for so long with this pent up fury at all this errant bullshit and mayhem, it's all I can manage.

Keep going Stef, you are much needed. Leave the bloody daisies to me.

Bridget Dunne said...

Stef - "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Dr. Martin Luther King

Your warmth, humanity, humour and intelligence are much needed in this increasingly foul land of ours.

Anonymous said...

If there was any connection between the 7/7 and 21/7 bombers that could not be hidden it would be the nature of the explosives used.

In one case the explosions were successful (no details as to exactly what they were) and in the other case they weren't. They failed so badly that they could never have been considered to be explosives in the first place. (Even though in the early days of the trial someone from the UK gov prepared a video showing what they may have been like if they had worked (eh, ????)).

This begs the question as to whether or not there was ever any connection between the 7/7 and 21/7 people with respect to control of technological input.

paul said...

That's terrorism.
No that's abduction and gang rape.

You might as well say that's entertainment, as it would be as accurate and useful.

There's a reason we have categories, ie to understand what we are discussing.

If you start assigning meaning subjectively, how can anyone know what you're talking about?

Wolfie said...

Paul,

In that case the men who are the subject of this post are only guilty of plotting to make explosions. You are focussing on mechanism rather than intent.

Releasing large numbers of criminally intent individuals into a society can have "terrorist intent". I'm not saying the individual criminals are terrorists, they have no political goals, I'm suggesting that the people who are introducing them into our society may do.

Terrorism is a term used to describe unlawful violence or other unlawful harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.[1] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target non-combatants.
As a form of unconventional warfare, terrorism is sometimes used when attempting to force political change by: convincing a government or population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm, destabilization of an existing government, motivating a disgruntled population to join an uprising, escalating a conflict in the hopes of disrupting the status quo, expressing a grievance, or drawing attention to a cause.

My friend tells me that the elderly in his area are afraid to leave their homes due to the escalating violence on their streets. White people are leaving the area in droves.

cf : "Robocop" plot.

Stef said...

You would have thought that a government that has busily spent the last 10 years creating lots of new and exciting crimes people can be guilty of and faced with statistics that showed our prisons were going to be over-filled years in advance would have made preparations to deal with the 'crisis'

Obviously, it must be another cock-up

Re. the white flight thing

My guess would be that a lot of non-white people would like to move out of the festering shit-holes that dot our green a present land as well - only fewer of them can afford to

Stef said...

@Bridget

I blush

Of course, MLK's life ended when he got shot but I get the point

paul said...


In that case the men who are the subject of this post are only guilty of plotting to make explosions.

And you are think that they were convicted on these charges

You are focussing on mechanism rather than intent.

Of course I am, I am not a mind reader.

Releasing large numbers of criminally intent individuals into a society can have "terrorist intent". I'm not saying the individual criminals are terrorists, they have no political goals, I'm suggesting that the people who are introducing them into our society may do.

May do?
I'm sure your intuitions are very strong, but a little more explanation and some sort of argument would help.
Begging the question is one of the weaknesses our great movement is most prone to.
As is talking shite.

Who is doing this, how are their ends served better than the daily mail's output?

Terrorism is a term used to describe unlawful violence or other unlawful harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.[1] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target non-combatants.
As a form of unconventional warfare, terrorism is sometimes used when attempting to force political change by: convincing a government or population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm, destabilization of an existing government, motivating a disgruntled population to join an uprising, escalating a conflict in the hopes of disrupting the status quo, expressing a grievance, or drawing attention to a cause.

I am neither wiser nor better informed by all that, as it is all so general as to be almost useless.
Terrorism by definition has a political goal, I do not see their political goal in their criminal acts. I have no idea about those who released them (what if they were first offenders?)as you've only just mentioned them, so I can't assume a political goal if I know nothing about them, or even of their existence.

My friend tells me that the elderly in his area are afraid to leave their homes due to the escalating violence on their streets. White people are leaving the area in droves.

Anecdotal evidence, always more welcome above empirical enquiry if you're making allegations.
Well tell your friend about the people you have identified that have released them.
Then join the BNP, they have a very stern view about white victimisation.

Sinclair said...

Type the phrase "and with other persons unknown to murder" & you'll come up with another shining example of neo-British justice in action - that of the 40-years sentence for thought-criminal Extraordinaire Dhiren Barot (& his gang).

With regard to the connections between 7/7 & 21/7 - the media & the J21 Judge have been spouting on about this, however this 'connection' has only arisen as a result of allegations aired in court by Stephen Kamlish (defence counsel for Asiedu/prosecution lackey for the others).


Quite how Muktar Ibrahim Said was able to obtain British Citizenship & hence a passport to enable him to travel to Pakistan (after having been dropped off at the airport on 11th December 2004 by Rauf Abdullah Mohammed (a man under Mi5 surveillance in 2004) is yet another reason for increased resources for the security services, shurely?

Sceptics & Conspiraloons would of course make the case that Ibrahim was facilitated travel to Pakistan in order to establish this (very tenuous) link between 7/7 & 21/7.

Whatever, it must have been these persons unknown at it again....

paul said...

That's the problem with persons unknown, very hard to pin down, very easy to pin on.

Stef said...

@paul/ wolfie

Do either of you have equally strong opinions about puppies and daisies?

I've been thinking about them a lot recently

Wolfie said...

OK Paul, lets just ignore the fears and problems of the working-classes and dismiss them as racists.

In doing so we hand them on a plate to the BNP.

I recall from my classics lessons that there were times when prisoner releases were used to cause social unrest when required by the elite in ancient Rome.

I'm only theorising as to possible strategies.

paul said...

OK Paul, lets just ignore the fears and problems of the working-classes and dismiss them as racists.
Well you can do that, I never suggested it.
I'm not even sure what this working class you speak of is, let alone its specific fears and problems.
Were the alleged gang rapists ruling class? Was the alleged victim definitely not bourgeois?
How would class relations change things in any case?

In doing so we hand them on a plate to the BNP.

I can't hand anyone over to the bnp, let alone the ill defined but seemingly white middle class you refer to.

I recall from my classics lessons that there were times when prisoner releases were used to cause social unrest when required by the elite in ancient Rome.

I only went to a comprehensive and we didn't get 'classics' lessons, whatever they are, so you have me at a disadvantage.
After I left however, I did develop a taste for trying to think as clearly as possible.

I'm only theorising as to possible strategies.

No harm in that, but for theories to be useful, they must be tested and justified at some point.
Your thesis that an incident of gang rape is part of a systematic program is interesting to you, but you have to make some sort of case for it.

Saying you remember about some 'times' where some 'prisoners' were released 'somewhere' backs up a theory that an unsubstantiated gang rape is part of a program by 'some persons' just doesn't cut the mustard in my book.

I offered the BNP as an outlet as I believe they aren't quite as fussy as me.

Stef said...

Though we never studied it at school I think Spartacus was a bit of a classic

Stef said...

FWIW I love everyone who takes time to comment on this blog, well except Jon Ronson, and it makes me sad when they argue

jon ronson said...

Spacker!!

Stef said...

Twat!

paul said...

whyowhy can't we get along?!!?

I refer you to your reply elsewhere.

As long as its polite and to the point, can't see the harm in it

Stef said...

haha

hoisted with my own petard

I'll just get my coat...