Encouragement of Terror, and Double standards 17


Under our sweeping anti-terror legislation, to encourage terror is illegal, and we have adopted extra-territoriality – encouraging terrorism while you are abroad is an offence in the UK. Here we published some extremely important points about it made in the House of Commons debate on the legislation:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2005/10/mps_debate_the.html

Like all our recent anti-terror legislation, it is in fact designed to be used purely against Muslims. That is a bold claim. Let me demonstrate it is true in practice. Here Brian Kilmeade of Fox News calls for bombings in Iran. By the end of the clip, his meaning is unequivocal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH3BTaWrQ3I&eurl=http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/101107Bombings.htm

Now if any Muslim were to appear on TV, calling for terrorist bombings, he would undoubtedly be banned from entering the UK, and if he did enter would be arrested. But calling for the terrorist killing of Muslims is perfectly OK. None of these things is gong to happen to Mr Kilmeade.


17 thoughts on “Encouragement of Terror, and Double standards

  • Alien

    Craig

    This is getting more and more serious. the propaganda against Muslims is similar to, if not exceeding, the anti-Jewish campaign in the 1930's Nazi Germany. Muslims are now for many people the origin of all evils in the world, military, terroristic, economic, or human rights-related.

    Something needs to be done to stop that escalation, if the public feelings tip the edge it will be a disaster, for the UK and the world.

  • writeon

    It's not just, or even really double-standards. It might be worse. Our arguments and logic lead us into some rather confusing intellectual territory.

    Calling for an aerial attack on Iran from "our side" is by definition, not an act of terrorism. It's not perceived as terrorism because it's us. We don't actually want to kill innocent civilians, but their unfortunate deaths are regarded as collatoral damage, or an unintended, tragic, consequence; of a necessary action which has been forced on us by the Iranian leadership. An illigitmate leadership that doesn't value human life like we do, even the lives of our enemies.

    The blame for these deaths lies not with us, but with the cynical Iranian leadership who have even placed their nuclear facilities in built-up urban areas in order to maximize civilian casualities and thereby score points aganst us in the propaganda war.

    We are legitimate and democratic nations, peace-loving, friendly and innocent. It's we who are under the continual threat of attack. It's us who are the victims. We never target civilians deliberately, like terrorists do. When we accidently kill civilians it's an accident or a tragic mistake. It's not something we set out to do, and when it happens we're genuinely sorry, and we feel bad.

    Terrorists aren't sorry, they revel in civilian deaths and carnage. Their whole purpose in life is to shed innocent civilian blood, because, unlike us, they are savages. They are uncivilized, bloodthirsty, killers, and we are the opposite. Whe we kill we cry, when they kill they rejoice, because they are almost inhuman.

    There is no moral equivalance between the ligitimate us of violence, in self-defence, by peace-loving democracies, and the actions of terrorist gangs bent on carnage, chaos, and mayhem. The age of extreme moral relativism is over. There's right and wrong, and the terrorist violence is just wrong and unacceptable under any circumstances.

    Now, these kinds of arguments underly almost everything we do in the "war on terror". They allow us extraordinary leeway to use extreme violence with moral and legal impunity. They also absolve us from any form of guilt, because even when we bomb civilian targets, it's not our responsibility. Our hands aren't really covered in blood and gore. They are spotlessly clean, because like Pilot, we've just washed them.

  • writeon

    Alien,

    You seem to be refering to the almost hysterical reaction in the UK media to an interview given by a leading Muslim, where he complains about the negative attitude which he thinks is evolving in relation to Islam and Muslims. He mentioned something about similarities with the nine-teen thirties.

    The paradox is that the reaction to his views seems to support his argument 100%! Some of the headlines and comments from readers have been extraordinarily negative and violent. The spin is that he compared the UK to Nazi Germany and it's treatment of the Jews! And this at a time when we are remembering our sacred war dead who fought against the Nazi hordes!

    I may be wrong, but I don't believe he used the word Nazi or directly compared contemporary Britain to Nazi Germany. The media have distorted and twisted his words for anti-muslim propaganda purposes, which is exactly what he was talking about in the first place!

    But this anti-Muslim offensive, is, I believe, calculated and orchestrated. We are involved in a generational struggle with "Muslim extremists" and "Islamofascism", therefore the enemy must be demonized and the public mobilized for this long struggle.

    Muslim exstremism is very broadly defined, and appears to encompass anybody who actively opposes Western interests and plans for the Arab and Muslim world. We are, in reality, embarking on a modern form of Crusade.

    What makes this Crusade more complicated is the presence of so many Muslims in our own countries and especially Western Europe. They are the potential enemy within and are therefore a dangerous weakspot in our defences and ability to wage the New Crusade. They must either join us in our ligitmate struggle against evil, or suffer the consequences.

    Perhaps the most frightening thing is that this attitude is not confined to the UK, but can be seen all over Europe. Everywhere, right-wing political movements are using anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiments as a key to gaining political power, and yes, it is remarkably like the nineteen-thirties. But what makes it worse is that this is happening in a period of almost unrivalled economic prosperity. What things will be like if we move into an economic recession is anyone's guess.

  • Alien

    Writeon

    It wasn't my intention to compare today's UK to the Nazi Germany, in fact I believe the anti-Muslim campaign didn't start in the UK or western Europe, but rather in the US following the demise of the Soviet Union.

    In Europe there were always some tensions around immigrants, going up and down with the social and economic changes, but importing the anti-Muslim concepts changed the "conflicts" from social to religious, and helped to create a common enemy from a diversity of backgrounds; whether Asian in the UK, North African in the France or Turkish in Germany.

    I agree with you that contemporary UK or Europe is not 1930s Germany, but I fear some would like to make it so.

  • Boss

    The following should go to prove the points so far raised,

    Peter Sissons on BBC news 24 broadcast at 17:38 Sat November 10th 2007

    Asking a Muslim representative:

    Q1- Is it right for anyone to say that Britain is treating Muslims like 1933 Germany, this Close to Remembrance Sunday?

    Q2- When there has been two hundred terrorists convicted, then Muslims should hold their breath, and wait for it to blow over as part of the price.

    Q3-Do you think that Muslims should wear poppies this weekend?

    Q4- We are expected to learn about arranged marriages, modesty, not drinking alcohol, how about Muslims condemning those countries that deny Holocaust?

    Fact that the numbers of convictions of the terrorists is not two hundreds being beside the point, the line of questioning failed to ask the Muslim guy; How many times a day do you beat up your wife? and how often do you use a rolling pin to beat her up with?

    The clear attempt to daemonise the Muslim population is step in the direction of making easier the implementation of the primitive foreign policy of the current bunch of scoundrels, that is the continuation of the last lot.

    Also the secondary pay-off lies in introduction of ID cards, as well as the justification of the recent and current legislations that effectively are designed to control the rapidly expanding Gulag we find ourselves in.

    As someone has observes in cif:

  • Cide Hamete Benengel

    Answers for Peter Sissons:

    1. In fact I'd like to see comparison with Germany 1948, when the surviving war criminals finally faced the Nuremberg tribunal. As you know, journalists and judges who had acted as accessories also faced the harshest penalty, which at the time was hanging.

    2. I don't know where that figure of 200 terrorists comes from, but certainly I welcome the conviction of criminals by due process.

    3. Personally, I find it more meaningful to grow poppies than wear a factory-made paper flower. But if it means something to someone, by all means they should wear it.

    4. I would like, right here and now, to condemn all Holocaust deniers. I don't know of any "countries" that deny the Nazi Holocaust. You appear to be making some innuendo about Iran. Well, the well-known statement by the previous president Khatami "The death of even one Jew is a crime" is quite unequivocal, and the current president has not contradicted it.

  • macshealbhaich

    I am appalled at what Boss (above) reported that Peter Sissons said:

    "Q1- Is it right for anyone to say that Britain is treating Muslims like 1933 Germany, this Close to Remembrance Sunday?

    Q2- When there has been two hundred terrorists convicted, then Muslims should hold their breath, and wait for it to blow over as part of the price.

    Q3-Do you think that Muslims should wear poppies this weekend?

    Q4- We are expected to learn about arranged marriages, modesty, not drinking alcohol, how about Muslims condemning those countries that deny Holocaust?"

    Let me comment specifically about Q3.

    Wearing a red poppy began as a commemoration of the slaughtered hundreds of thousands in World War I, and then WWII, and now all the conflicts British and Commonwealth servicemen and women have been involved in.

    I would think that it is deeply offensive and insulting for this Autocue Reader to impugn UK's Muslims like that. I've read that something like 80 percent of the British Indian Army were Muslims.

    Muslims of the British Empire and Commonwealth fought and died in France, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Gallipoli, East Africa (WWI); Abbyssinia, North Africa, Italy, France, Burma, Malaya, Indo-China, Java (WWII); Korea; and in the "savage wars of peace" – Kenya, Cyprus, Aden, Malaya, Borneo.

    I would say that the grandparents of today's British Muslims bought them their place in the sun and the right to criticise, politicise, and be treated with respect and equality, and not be gratuitously insulted by an overpaid hack.

    Someone (I don't think it could be me as I seem to be "greylisted" – whatever that is) should take issue with the Beeb and this Autocue Reader over this. I shall, however, be writing to the Royal British Legion and the Haig Fund to see if they can express an opinion.

  • pamery

    I strongly agree with the comments by write-on, above. I believe that once the economy tips into recession, which is already happening, it will be open season on immigrants in general and Muslims in particular. The press is already whipping up anti-Muslim hysteria after what I thought were quite reasonable comments by Mr. Bari. We are heading into a very dark period indeed, in which everone's courage will be tested.

  • writeon

    What increasingly concerns me, is that these questions about; immigrants, foreigners, Muslims, Islam, War on Terror… seem to be slowly turning into a dark whole. Into a general distrust, fear, and hatred of the others, the outsiders. Those not of our blood, who don't share our blood-values, and creed. They are becoming the Enemy.

    Attitudes to the "Enemy" and how we deal with them, seem to be the most important and defining question in an growing number of European countries. This is an unsettling development. In an age with so much change, we are defining our national identity, not so much by reference to what we are, but by what we are not. And we are not the Muslim other.

    What we are seeing is the growth of a crazed virus. It's a deadly mix of nationalism and racism, which, as we've seen before in Europe, can grow into an explosive political cocktail or nightmare. First for the ethnic minority and then for everyone else.

    So I believe Muslims are right to be concerned about the tone and atmosphere. It's only prudent on their part. They should be organizing on a pan-european basis to defend their civil-right. But even this peaceful development could be seen as a threat in these dark times.

    But we seem to want to deny them even the right voice their feelings of uneasiness. To say they feel opressed is somehow beyond the pale. To gain our trust and become accepted, they must effectively become us and accept our values and politics, even if our policies are sick. What we desire and demand is that European Muslims support the War on Terror against their own people and religion, even thought this whole war is both criminal, counterproductive, imoral and insane.

  • macshealbhaich

    We seem to be replaying an old tune, familiar to older generations. What is being said about Muslims now has been said about the Welsh, the Irish, and the Scots – especially the Gaels.

    So, can we expect a Proscription Act about their way of dressing, with imprisonment for six months without remission for a first offence and transportation ('extraordinary rendition'?) for a second offence, or being sold into slavery, or having their languages stamped out – and then, insult on insult, to have them treated and sneered at by BAFTA as "foreign lnaguages"?

    Whatever drove the recent 32-year-long Irish Troubles, there were real incidents that could described as terroristic – but nothing like the curtailment of ancient liberties took place as a consequence.

    The Scarman Report even so, found some of the behaviour of the security services in Northern Ireland unacceptable, and the use of torture, internment without trial and the Diplock Courts were stopped.

    Has there been a successful prosecution under the old rules of due process, habeas corpus, presumption of innocence of Muslims for primary terroristic offences – not those of having a unregistered mobile phone or an uninsured vehicle discovered as the police trash through their houses, or 'confessions' produced through being subjected to questionable interrogation methods over many days and weeks?

    The Official Narratives of 9-11, Bali, 7 July, 21 July, and the Menezes Murder are being shown to be replete with lies that render the identification of these crimes with Muslims extremely unlikely. There is even considerable doubt about whether the convictions of the Madrid Bombers can be considered safe – the same questions of how could 'backpack' bombs cause the damage that comes from explosives under the rolling stock, and access to the "first trains out of the yard" as with 7 July still haven't been satisfactorily answered.

    So, it appears on the basis of what seems purely notional "Islamic terrorism" that the Muslims are being demonised.

    When are we going to address the real seat of the problem?

  • writeon

    Dear Mac,

    As I'm sure you realize, "We" are not going to address the seat or root cause of the problem. Far from it. The Big "we", our political leaders and most of the media, are going to look in the opposite direction. We going to devote a great deal of time and energy in not addressing the real seat, but something else.

    It's important to realize that we are not guilty, we are innocent, and nothing that we do, or have done, justifies any of the acts of terrorist extremism we have been subjected to. We are civilized people and they are savages, who have to be pursued and neutralized.

    I have trouble with the idea one can somehow justify violence, and by definition the enemies violence is unjustified, whilst ours, is justified. I have difficulty seeing the difference, at least for the victims, of whether they are killed by a terrorist car-bomb, as opposed to a rocket from a NATO plane. I would contend that all forms of violence are, in essence, equally reprehensible. But I really don't think we want to get into a complicated debate about the nature of a "just war"!

    We're racing away from examining the seat of the problem, because to do so would lead us to pose some very serious and uncomfortable questions about the nature of our society. Are we really as peace-loving and innocent as we claim to be? What responsibility do we have for many of the conflicts we are currently involved in?

    We fake innocence and ignorance so well. Our leaders can't be a stupid as they pretend to be can they? They throw up their hands and act as if the attacks on us by "Islamic Terrorism" are not understandable, and come completely out of the blue. There is no rhyme or reason to them at all. Why are there radicalised Muslims when we treat them so well and have even invited them into our homes and shared our wealth and democracy with them? And they pay us back like this!

    All this is very convinient for our political leaders as it obscures the true nature of the conflict and lets us wash our hands of any responsibility or blame. Even though we have armies of occupation in their countries, even though we have supported dictatorships for decades, even though we kill at least a hundred of them, every time one of our kind is killed, even though we've literally destroyed whole countries in return for 9/11.

    Our capacity to delude ourselves and embrace a comforting illusion about ourselves and the true nature of modern imperialism knows no bounds.

    I would imagine that comments like this will soon be characterized as "Enemy Terrorist Propanganda" as the "progresses"!

    As a final thought, the newest measures annouced by Big Gordon in Parliament, only underscore the type of Post-Democratic society we are evolving into. A society where all public buildings, at huge cost, will be gradually turned into fortresses, protected against the terrorist threat, but also against ordinary people as well.

    This is characteristic of many of the necessary security measures we see enacted. They can equally be used both externally and internally for repression and State control in a crisis situation.

    Sorry this is so long, but I'm feeling particularly disgusted today!

  • pamery

    Maybe the solution to all this is pointed out indirectly by macshealbhaich when he describes the historical persecution of the indigenous British. The dissolution of the Union will in one fell swoop remove the entity in whose name the imperial adventures have been carried out. It's no coincidence that the most energetic demands for accountability in Westminster for the Iraq war have come from a Plaid Cymru MP. Imperial overstretch and implosion happened to the USSR and I expect it to happen here too – and the sooner the better.

  • ziz

    In England & Wales 390,127 people (0.7%) (Scotland 14,052 – @ 0.277%, the 3rd largest religion) stated their religion as Jedi on their 2001 Census forms – Brighton had 2.6% of their population who claimed Jedi worship.

    Jedi was assigned its own code in the United Kingdom for census processing, the number 896, fittingly being Yoda's birth year (896 BBY)

    Over 53,000 people listed themselves as Jedi in New Zealand's 2001 census as did 70,000 Ockers in the Census of the same year in Oz.

    It is time we started a campaign of hate and intolerance toward them.. already we have Edward Leigh MP (Con Gainsborough) asking in the House of Commons asking "Would I be allowed to set up a Jedi knights faith school?" Hansard Col 345 April 25th 2006.

    Let's stamp out this sinister cancer in our midst. I am convinced a bombing campaign against these people would receive massive popular support.

  • CampbellMoor

    OBL tried to justify mass murder on the basis that he felt it necessary to retaliate in kind – go down to the same level, break the enemies will to fight by causing an unnacceptable level of civilian casualties. This has been absolutely clear from virtually all of his statements. Yet otherwise intelligent people insist these murderous attacks are out of nothing more than vile hatred. Often the evidence they provide for this is so weak it would be laughable if where it is leading was not so sinister.

    Then of course they themselves argue that they, regrettably, have been forced to do this, and in reality they love peace and justice. One minute they claiming they want to liberate Iraq, Iran, whatever, the next they want to bomb "back to the stone age" those they claim they want to liberate.

    No small wonder some think they need to know what it's like.

    There had not been a single suicide bombing in Iraq from the beginning of time until 2003. I lived with Iraqis, Shia and Sunni, in London for three years. I have also lived and worked with Ulster Catholics and Protestants in oil development camps in Scotland.

    No comparison. The Iraqis got on fine. No-one was stirring it up. They were educated and sectarianism, thought it existed, was not for them. Seems like something was being done right.

    The Americans disbanded all the security forces and put sectarians in charge. Genius. Now we see the consequences – the complete ethnic cleansing of Baghdad – by decimation. Because they "knew better". They have quite a library of drivel like "The Arab Mind" with which to delude themselves of their superiority.

    So now we have a million dead (roughly one third directly by coalition bombing, one third random decimation killings to drive the Sunni out of Baghdad (largely unreported by the various Ministries of Truth) , one third revenge anti-Shia suicide bombings now the in-from Saudi anti-Shia Neanderthals that the Iraqis all used to despise have a foothold.

    And then there was the death-by-blockade – the total destruction of the infrastruction. Then the obliteration of their cultural heritage.

    All justified by a waterboarding-till-he-said-what-they-wanted (i.e. Saddam was in bed with Osama) – so it wouldn't be a war crime. Makes no difference, Donald, you will fry.

    So all this and we are bombarded with the constant implication that Muslims all secretly or openly support OBL and that is fundamentally what they are all about. The upshot of which is that taxpayers millions goes into torturing Muslims (often to death – 100 so far) for worthless "intelligence" – all just at the end of the day for recreational purposes.

    I heard that the Chinese say "You become what you hate."

    And so many people support this cause! Like its a mark of their identity and patriotism to do so. Identity theft, if you as me. However 15th Feb 2003 was the day when a huge number of people demonstrated to the world that the leaders of their Pepsi and Coke "democracies" are not one and the same thing as themselves. Without them God know what the Muslim world would think of us as an entire people. If they did to this country one thousandth of what "we" have been doing to them, all those peace loving heroic and valiant crusaders who "regrettably" have had their hands forced would now be slathering of the prospect of nuclear annilhilation. All in the name of justice and fairness of course.

    Just do it on you own in the bedroom please. You've no idea how you look.

Comments are closed.