Brown Sweeps In On Staged Terror

Blogdial
writes to show us that the Security hype is just that – hype. Yes there will
always be the risk of terrorism, always the risk that some disaffected group
will want to be heard, but lets please keep it in proportion.

Despite the fact that in both the Glasgow incident and Friday’s
London events the cars involved were filled with nothing more deadly than
gasoline, which is hardly a carnage-inducing explosive, the British government
and the media have embarked upon a fresh assault of fearmongering and are
hyping the inevitability that more attacks are imminent.

These are the most recommended answers to the question “How safe do you feel
in the UK”, as
asked at BBC.

Added: Saturday, 30 June,
2007
, 10:18 GMT
11:18 UK

Completely safe, thank you.

And even if I didn’t, I would not be prepared to give terrorists any victory
by changing my habits or pandering to any ‘increased security’ in response to
their threats.

Megan, Cheshire UK

Recommended by 215 people

———————

Added: Saturday, 30 June,
2007
, 10:06 GMT
11:06 UK

Statistically and practically you have more chance of being hit by a bus on Oxford
Street than being a victim of these deranged,
brainwahsed psycopaths. Lets get on with our lives and don’t give them the
satisfaction of thinking we’ll change of behaviour or way of life. As someone
regularly in London on business I
will continue to use the tube and visit nightclubs when socialising and these
spineless cowards won’t stop me.

john smith, leeds, United Kingdom

Recommended by 193 people

———————

Added: Saturday, 30 June,
2007
, 11:28 GMT
12:28 UK

Ooooh, I’m SO scared! Please, Mr Brown, pass some more draconian laws which
limit our freedom.

I’m sick of being made to feel fearful by clowns who failed their “car
bombing 101″ course.

During the WWII blitz, when the danger was very real, the message wasn’t one
of fear and angst, but “Keep Calm and Carry On”. I wish we had that message in
today’s phony war on terra.

Marc Brett, London, UK

These are the most recommended
answers to the question “How safe do you feel in the
UK”, as asked at BBC.

Its as if the usefulness of these acts are being tested by BBC as part of a
carefully coordinated planned study of effectiveness. As you can see, no one
is buying it
.

Everyone now understands that giving up your rights for safety is bullshit.
Even more people understand that the people engineering these ‘attacks’ are the
same people who are taking away your rights
.

Watson has an
interesting and insightful thing to say
about this:

If we were really at war with Islamic terrorists then the British government
would impose stringent controls on letting Muslims into the country in the
first place and would deport others en masse – but instead the opposite has
happened, while everybody’s rights are violated and abused in the name of
security.

No one can say that this is a lie. People up and down the country are saying
it openly. It cant be long before the newest buzzword in the UK
is ‘Repatriation’. Denmark
have already swallowed hard and said the words:

The focus is going to be moved, whether the grotesque 'Uncle Joe' Gordon Brown likes it or not, to eliminating ‘the enemy within’ and no
one is going to accept even more useless legislation, which is literally
useless at stopping crime.

Craig Murray adds his sceptical view here

Craig says: According to Willie Rae, Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police,
there are clear links between today's Glasgow incident and the London
car bombs. He declined to expand further, but I presume he meant more
than that both events involved cars and petrol. A copycat crime is, in
a sense, always linked to the crime it copies. But Willie Rae is not
the Metropolitan Police, with its track record of lying to us, so I am
prepared to believe that he knows something more sunstantial.

I still cannot understand why the Met does not release the CCTV
footage of the London suspects. As the suspects must realise that they
will have been caught on CCTV, I can't think of a single sensible
motive for witholding it.

Fortunately, amateur does not do justice as a description of these
attackers – absolute rubbish comes closer to it. It is worth noting
that, if the London car bombs had ignited, they would probably have
burnt like the Glasgow car, and almost certainly would not have had the
kind of explosive force that the media tried to claim.

Craig says in another article:

A good rule is to look at what did happen, not what might have happened. Consider this:

a) Nobody committed suicide. Rather than follow Scotland Yard's
Peter Clarke and speculate that was because the driver lost his nerve,
let us admit that it is at least possible that nobody was intended to
commit suicide. If suicide was not part of the modus operandi, that
vastly increases the number of groups and individuals who might have
been responsible.

b) No bomb exploded and nobody was killed. There seems a general
presumption that was because the trigger failed, or was defused in
time. That is possible, certainly. It could well be so. But there is
another possibility that cannot be ruled out yet – perhaps the thing
was not meant to explode, perhaps no-one was meant to be killed.
Perhaps it was meant to look like a convincing bomb, even like a
convincing failed bomb. If you accept that as a logical possibility,
that would bring in even more individuals and organisations who might
have been responsible. To be up for a bomb scare is very different to
being up for a bomb.

Let me be quite clear again: Islamic extremists may very well be
responsible. I am not saying they are not. I am saying nobody knows
yet. But let me expand a bit on my Cui Bono theme.

There are plenty of companies – and wealthy individuals – making
huge amounts of money from both the War on Terror and its equally ugly
sister, the War in Iraq. There has been much speculation that Brown
will edge away from both of these. If British troops were to withdraw
from Iraq, for example, that could reduce the access currently enjoyed
by companies, including Aegis and BAE, to billions of dollars of US
government contracts for arms and mercenaries. These companies make
money out of killing. Death is their business. Today's car bomb – and
the immediate media presumption it is Islamic terrorism – certainly
forces Brown further into the War on Terror. The fact that the Iraq war
is the root cause of an upsurge of terror in the UK, strangely does not
negate the surge of political support for the War that this sort of
incident brings as a reflex reaction from our leaders.

This item from Thomas C Green published in The
Register
says much the same thing.

Police and securocrats know that there aren't enough real terrorists in the
world, which is why they have to keep manufacturing them. This is because
citizens tire of being watched by cameras, frisked and x-rayed, having their
belongings searched, giving fingerprints to so-called friendly nations on
entry, contemplating the myriad government databases where their details and
activities are preserved, and wondering if some dour little bureaucrat is
reading their email or listening to them on the phone.

Citizens tire also of reading the rolls of the war dead fraudulently
sacrificed in the name of counterterrorist “victory”, and of seeing
hundreds of billions spent on surveillance and private security, ridiculous
wars, and security-related gimmicks and gizmos, when it could be so much better
spent on, oh, needs like housing, medicine and pensions, and mitigating actual
mass threats to life via such non-sexy routes as traffic safety, fire safety,
vaccinations, buildings and infrastructure inspection, water treatment, and
food safety.

But the guys with the guns and cameras and listening devices have been on a
roll since 9/11, embarrassing their clip-board-toting rivals in the race for
public money, even though, collectively, they've taken or made meaner far more
lives than they can ever hope to protect with their strategy of violence in the
name of peace, and fascism in the name of liberty.

To keep the billions rolling in, they've got to produce a terrorist every
now and then. Only real terrorists are hard to come by, so clowns and stooges
with harebrained schemes end up doing bin Laden's perp walk periodically.

You can read the rest
of the article
here.
 

The bottom line here is that we must approach terrorism with
a cool head. I for one don’t underestimate the will of certain terror groups to
want to hit Britain,
and I only have praise for our security services, however, it must be kept
proportionate, the genie must be kept in the bottle.

There is absolutely no reason for the population of Britain
to give up any more liberties, to allow more and more draconian laws to be put
in place. There are now so many laws available to our security forces that they
don’t know which ones to use. 

It does not go
hand in hand that to fight terror we must give up our liberties. If as it looking increasingly likely the 'terrorists' were doctors, perhaps the Government should be looking at its failed  NHS policies.

If we were really at war with Islamic terrorists then the
British government would impose stringent controls on letting Muslims into the
country in the first place and would deport others en masse – but instead the
opposite has happened, while everybody’s rights are violated and abused in the
name of security.

Listen to the people Gordon, and remember that the Industry
known as Security has a vested interest in keeping this Politics of Fear going.

Listen to the People.

 

Perhaps the Politicians in Britain
should take a leaf from their Australian cousins, and start to get tough where
it matters.

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told
on Wednesday to get out of Australia
, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror
attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim
leaders pledged loyalty to Australia
and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his
Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter
Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard,
hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they
did not accept that Australia
was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. “If those are
not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic
state, then Australia
is not for you”, he said on National Television.

“I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws
governing people in Australia
: one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can't
agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer
Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices
it, perhaps, then, that's a better option”, Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said
those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other
country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims
who did not want to accept local values should “clear off. Basically
people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by
Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear
off”, he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian
Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

Quote: “IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave
It. I am tired of this nation worrying about
whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist
attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in
patriotism by the majority of Australians.”

“However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the
'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our
patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a
grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia
.” “However, there are a few things that those who have recently come
to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.”
“This idea of Australia
being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and
our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own
society, our own language and our own lifestyle.”

This culture has been
developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and
victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom

“We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese,
Japanese, Russian, or any other language.
Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .. Learn the
language!”

“Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right
wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian
principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is
certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends
you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home,
because God is part of our culture.”

“We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask
is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with
us.”

“If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like “A Fair
Go”, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this
planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we
really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep
your culture, but do not force it on others.

“This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND,
and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this.
But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our
Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take
advantage of one other great Australian freedom,

'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE '.”

Advertisements

About IanPJ

Ian Parker-Joseph, former Leader of the Libertarian Party UK, who currently heads PDPS Internet Hosting and the Personal Deed Poll Services company, has been an IT industry professional for over 20 years, providing Business Consulting, Programme and Project Management, specialising in the recovery of Projects that have failed in a process driven world. Ian’s experience is not limited to the UK, and he has successfully delivered projects in the Middle East, Africa, US, Russia, Poland, France and Germany. Working within different cultures, Ian has occupied high profile roles within multi-nationals such as Nortel and Cable & Wireless. These experiences have given Ian an excellent insight into world events, and the way that they can shape our own national future. His extensive overseas experiences have made him all too aware of how the UK interacts with its near neighbours, its place in the Commonwealth, and how our nation fits into the wider world. He is determined to rebuild many of the friendships and commercial relationships with other nations that have been sadly neglected over the years, and would like to see greater energy and food security in these countries, for the benefit of all. Ian is a vocal advocate of small government, individual freedom, low taxation and a minimum of regulation. Ian believes deeply and passionately in freedom and independence in all areas of life, and is now bringing his professional experiences to bear in the world of politics.
This entry was posted in Main Page. Bookmark the permalink.