Any ideas?
More political polemic. I try and stay out of it but I can't.
This post, on commentisfree at the Guardian, follows on from The Observer's leak of the soon-to-be-published civil servant's narrative from the Home Office, in which it is revealed that the Iraq war was thought to be the main motivator of the 7 July bombings' perpetrators.
Curious Hamster takes up the theme very well, go visit.
Bin Laden did not personally direct the July attackers from his aescetic batcave.
But his idea that the West is engaged in 'a war against Muslims' did reach them
'Is there a war against Muslims?
a war in which illegal bombing, chemical weapons, torture, prisoner abuse and detention without trial or charge is rife,
a war which is said to be about 'freedom' and 'democracy, ' but is about greed and enslavement to money,
a war in which holy places and books are desecrated by unclean infidels,
a war where I am called as a holy warrior, defending my oppressed people?
(for surely my soul feels unfulfilled until now)
What greater death? What better life?
than to fight against these people, this war
to fight them with whatever weapons there are to hand
and to be a hero and a martyr...'
Khaled al Berry's story gave me a foot-soldier's insight into this extremist worldview. When this is how the current U.S and U.K foreign policy is seen by those who fight against it, and when those who resist it are not organised into armies or Governments but are ordinary young men, British citizens, walking bombs, what are we to do?
We can't get them round a table and negotiate with them. They don't have a leader. And they don't even have an agreed set of demands.
We can ignore them whilst carrying on with our foreign policy and take the increased risks of being blown up on ther way to work on the chin. There's not so many of them and we shouldn't panic. We managed the Blitz and the I.R.A.
We can keep a closer look out for them and try to stay one step ahead by increasing surveillance and giving more funding to the Security services, and increasing police powers, and tightening up immigration, and introducing identity cards. With a lot of data on the citizens, the Government and security services can keep much more on top of what people are thinking and planning. And as terrorists are not really discernible from the general public, (being chip-eating, trainer-wearing, sport-following news-watching types like everyone else it seems), we should all be treated as a potential terrorist. It's for our own protection. If we have done nothing wrong, read nothing wrong, talked to no dodgy types, then we have nothing to fear. And anyway, keeping watch over people is not the monopoly of the Government. Neighbours could be encouraged to keep tabs on neighbours, employees on each other. Imagine if businesses could target their advertising towards me by knowing about me from my centrally-stored data? Based on what they know about my credit history, salary, savings and marital status and property-ownership status? Based on what they knew about my medical history, driving history, tax history, criminal record? Wouldn't that be something else?
(''Fear'-stories are high-impact news, garnering greater audience share, deeper demographic penetration, and increased message-retention of the target audience. This then enables a strong platform for Government-voter communication messages, and , research shows, results in the audience becoming 19.4% more receptive to Government calls for increased security measures, tougher legislation and no-nonsense foreign policies...' )
We can threaten, invade and bomb places where we think they are known to be sympathetic to the idea that we are intent on threatening, invading and bombing Muslims. Terrorist-harbouring countries.
Like um, Saudi Arabia, where the 9/11 bombers were from. Oh, sorry, Afghanistan then. And Iraq. And Iran. And...
Or Leeds, where 3 of the 7 July terrorists were from?
Hang on. They could be anywhere, these people, who think we're engaged in a war against them. These terrorists. They're following an idea. We can't catch and idea and try it or make war on it. We can't control it.
Maybe we should do something else?
Any ideas?
This post, on commentisfree at the Guardian, follows on from The Observer's leak of the soon-to-be-published civil servant's narrative from the Home Office, in which it is revealed that the Iraq war was thought to be the main motivator of the 7 July bombings' perpetrators.
Curious Hamster takes up the theme very well, go visit.
Bin Laden did not personally direct the July attackers from his aescetic batcave.
But his idea that the West is engaged in 'a war against Muslims' did reach them
'Is there a war against Muslims?
a war in which illegal bombing, chemical weapons, torture, prisoner abuse and detention without trial or charge is rife,
a war which is said to be about 'freedom' and 'democracy, ' but is about greed and enslavement to money,
a war in which holy places and books are desecrated by unclean infidels,
a war where I am called as a holy warrior, defending my oppressed people?
(for surely my soul feels unfulfilled until now)
What greater death? What better life?
than to fight against these people, this war
to fight them with whatever weapons there are to hand
and to be a hero and a martyr...'
Khaled al Berry's story gave me a foot-soldier's insight into this extremist worldview. When this is how the current U.S and U.K foreign policy is seen by those who fight against it, and when those who resist it are not organised into armies or Governments but are ordinary young men, British citizens, walking bombs, what are we to do?
We can't get them round a table and negotiate with them. They don't have a leader. And they don't even have an agreed set of demands.
We can ignore them whilst carrying on with our foreign policy and take the increased risks of being blown up on ther way to work on the chin. There's not so many of them and we shouldn't panic. We managed the Blitz and the I.R.A.
We can keep a closer look out for them and try to stay one step ahead by increasing surveillance and giving more funding to the Security services, and increasing police powers, and tightening up immigration, and introducing identity cards. With a lot of data on the citizens, the Government and security services can keep much more on top of what people are thinking and planning. And as terrorists are not really discernible from the general public, (being chip-eating, trainer-wearing, sport-following news-watching types like everyone else it seems), we should all be treated as a potential terrorist. It's for our own protection. If we have done nothing wrong, read nothing wrong, talked to no dodgy types, then we have nothing to fear. And anyway, keeping watch over people is not the monopoly of the Government. Neighbours could be encouraged to keep tabs on neighbours, employees on each other. Imagine if businesses could target their advertising towards me by knowing about me from my centrally-stored data? Based on what they know about my credit history, salary, savings and marital status and property-ownership status? Based on what they knew about my medical history, driving history, tax history, criminal record? Wouldn't that be something else?
(''Fear'-stories are high-impact news, garnering greater audience share, deeper demographic penetration, and increased message-retention of the target audience. This then enables a strong platform for Government-voter communication messages, and , research shows, results in the audience becoming 19.4% more receptive to Government calls for increased security measures, tougher legislation and no-nonsense foreign policies...' )
We can threaten, invade and bomb places where we think they are known to be sympathetic to the idea that we are intent on threatening, invading and bombing Muslims. Terrorist-harbouring countries.
Like um, Saudi Arabia, where the 9/11 bombers were from. Oh, sorry, Afghanistan then. And Iraq. And Iran. And...
Or Leeds, where 3 of the 7 July terrorists were from?
Hang on. They could be anywhere, these people, who think we're engaged in a war against them. These terrorists. They're following an idea. We can't catch and idea and try it or make war on it. We can't control it.
Maybe we should do something else?
Any ideas?
posted by Rachel at 10:25 am
We absolutely do not give Government these powers. Privacy and freedom could not and would not exist with such knowledge of our every move. The plan is to microchip us ( this is already happening in the States and in some cases in U.K) and link us to a central computer, eventually and very soon under a police state ( which is just about in existence now), World Govt with a One world Army and Single Currency that would be cashless. These things are rapidly coming into being and even ten years ago the very mention of them was enough to cause many to completely deny them, well they are closer than ever. How long can people keep their eyes closed and not at least have an open mind, I have found that there are people waking up. The above means you are totally controlled. It would be totally naive to think that it would be anything otherwise, History should tell us that. All truth comes in three stages, first it is ridiculed, then it is vehemently opposed, finally it is accepted as being self evident, which camp do you lie in at the moment?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry, but I do not want unsubstantiated cut and paste 'BNP exclusives' and conspiracy theories on this site, so the comment has been deleted. If you think you have an exclusive piece of news to share or any information that may be helpful to understanding 7th July criminal attacks, can I suggest you take it to the police, your MP, or to a media outlet. This personal web diary is not the place.
Noted: I'm sorry.
Cool, but don't say I said "Noted: I'm sorry" ... because I didn't say so! Goodbye Rachel. Enjoy talking to yourself.
You may want to read about the "progress" being made in Scotland with regards to the Citizen Entitlement Card.
Charles Clarke will be paying them a visit to see how its done.
Anonymous
You are not the only anonymous commentator. It was someone else who apologised, but as you are both anonymous I don't know who I am talking to and which one of you it was who apologised. I am considering turning off anonymous comments, for that reason, because it is hard to know who you are communicating with and whether all the anonymous comments are from the same person - sometimes they clearly aren't. I think if you are saying something, you should have the courage of your convictions and say who you are, even if it is just a nickname. Many anonymous comments have been abusive, insulting or unhinged, so I have now started moderating them.