Tuesday 19 October 2021

Terrorism?



Terrorism!

Given that (some) governments, are highly selective in their condemnations of 'terrorism'- highly!- I am wondering exactly where the UK currently lies on the threat scale. At of the time of commencing writing (14th October) it is deemed to be 'Substantial- an attack is likely!' I've just checked on the Metropolitan Police site. That's level three on a scale of one to five, five being 'Critical- an attack is highly likely in the near future.'

In Northern Ireland the threat level is currently 'Severe- an attack is highly likely,'- one stage higher- but not yet, 'in the near future.' On the mainland Home Secretary Patel lowered the threat level from 'Severe' to 'Substantial' on the 3rd November 2020. Ultimately the UK's threat level could reach as high as level five, 'Critical- an attack is highly likely in the near future!' The last time that the UK's threat risk was deemed to be 'Critical' was in May 2017, following the Manchester bombing.

Terrorism!

It's defined as 'the use or threat of action- violence and intimidation- especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.' The precise wording varies but the gist remains pretty much the same. The meaning seems quite clear. With or without an absolute grasp of any sort of definition we'd all 'know' if an incidence of terrorism had taken place upon our shores... wouldn't we?

If a terrorist attack was to take place outside of the UK the chances of us being aware that such an act had taken place would be variable, far less certain. One country's act of self-proclaimed 'defence' is often another's offensive and, at the extreme end, its act of 'terrorism!'

The UK, as it currently stands, appears alarmingly relaxed about selling arms to all manner of nations, who will in turn use these to exercise terrorism upon various civilian populations in other parts of the world. 'Labour' Liverpool has just hosted 'AOC Europe 2021 (Electronic Warfare Europe 2021)' the 'Labour' Mayor, happy to have done so- three Labour councillors are currently facing a Labour kangaroo court and suspensions for daring to have questioned the organiser's morality! And our brave British Bobbies have been typically heavy-handedly policing the event against protesters. Where better to search for the source of several future or ongoing terrorist campaigns! Mighty Saudi Arabia upon the Yemini population or, military giant Israel upon the occupied Palestinians! Apparently this is just good business for the UK, where the terrorists may dress up nice and smartly and flash their expensive dental work! The culminating acts are to be undertaken, anyway, overseas and, as such, do not (need to) feature on the UK's threat scale.

Perhaps it is that UK self-anointed shroud of British exceptionalism that enables us to so freely export that which is deemed so terrifying when enacted at home?

Terrorism!

So, back in good ol' Blighty, where the lines are more easily drawn, when Chris Packham's home was attacked with an ignited vehicle the act quite rightly made the news headlines. On the day of the attack (8th October 2021) Chris Packham was filmed anxiously speculating about future dangers to his family and/or himself.

Yet, within the week, Britain's ongoing and (now official) woeful response to the global pandemic threat had pushed the Packham attack far enough down the news reels for it to have effectively fallen off the bottom of 'the' list. On 12th October Hunt (Conservative) and Clark (also Conservative) sought to selectively lowlight some of the failings of the current (also Conservative) cabal. Then, on the 13th, William Shatner chose to thoroughly dispel any lingering misconceptions that he might represent some sort of uber-enlightened interstellar problem solver and the Packham attack was old news.

Certainly 'violence' and/or 'intimidation' featured in the Packham attack. Further, Chris Packham would, I am sure, concur with himself being classed a 'civilian.' And finally, in light of the mounting number of animal corpses being dumped at Chris's address, we could reasonably assume the attack to have been 'in pursuit of political aims.' The ritual slaughter of the UK's vanishing wildlife remains, after all, a topic for discussion in the Commons, even the currently highly depleted Commons. Thus, the act can reasonably be argued to be an act of terrorism. Had it been directed against, for example, the home of MP Raab, in protest at the parliamentary act of condemning hundreds of thousands of the UK's children to winter poverty and bouts of severe hunger, surely this minor tweak would do it and yet the 'intimidation' of 'civilian,' Chris Packham, for 'political aims' doesn't quite cut the mustard.

Terrorism!

We could spend an age speculating as to whether the fact that so many 'serving' MPs condone and/or indulge in the violent destruction of our wildlife may have tipped the balance against classifying an act of 'petrol-bombing a civilian for political ends' as a terrorist attack. But really the matter's already been decided by our MSM and our politicians, most of them. Of interest here, we could even choose to recall the UK's PM- then a Spectator journo- invoking the hunters to ignore the law, when fox hunting was first outlawed in 2005 but what would be the point? Instead, we may note that those who define what is and what is not 'terrorism' continue to fudge about the edges as best suits those who 'indulge.' 'Indulge?'

Popular argument would have it that Tony Blair is not a terrorist, instead that he is an 'international war criminal.' More so a very rich one! One who deceitfully invoked terror upon others for political ends. Currently, those who hold the reins of power may have blocked any trial but even they cannot yet fully block independent thought.

So, moving on! On and over! In the States there has been considerable weight thrown behind calls to reclassify BLM as a terrorist organisation. But, can it be deemed terrorism when a nation, significant part thereof, dares to question the celebration of former citizens who have grown rich upon the enslavement and exploitation of their fellow human beings? Which should we consider the greater act of terror, the tearing of living beings from their families as mere property, or the toppling of a bronze effigy of a long dead international slaver?

What does, and what will, the UK's Home Secretary choose to do with such information? What future for those attempting to better our social infrastructure (BLM) or our planetary future (Insulate Britain)? Where are those non-corporate journalists to be found when we need them, to properly draw and highlight the distinctions?

Home Secretary Patel is currently preparing the 'Nationality and Borders Bill,' which is expected to sail through the UK's one state system. The most unsavoury detail of which is that part which aims to endow Border Force operatives with legal immunity should their acts of state sponsored attempted-manslaughter achieve fruition. Just to clarify, in the event of desperate refugees being caused to drown as a result of being pushed back out into the waves by the UK's Border Force then charges of manslaughter or murder would not result. Such an eventuality would then act in direct opposition to international law! Already, upon the complicit Jeremy Vine Show, I have listened to the 'argument' that any resultant death would be 'incentivising.' Special thanks to brave Jeremy for platforming that one!

Terrorism!

'The use or threat of action- violence and intimidation- especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.'

Should the bodies of formerly desperate refugees start to wash up upon British and French shorelines will the threat level rise to properly reflect Britain's status? Will the UK's fearless corporate journos jump ship (so to speak) and adequately report the horror show that is British politics and the pitiful excuse that now purports to represent British MSM? Will Home Secretary Patel perhaps more openly sport the cloak of 'terrorist' and will the threat level properly reflect this?

I offer, as a simple comparison, a site that wholly dispels any myth that 'brave' Britain compares favourably to other nations in its acknowledgement and/or assistance of desperate refugees. Although disingenuous 'journalism' would have us believe otherwise reference to the figures will offer significant enlightenment. Barely a smidgen over 10% of refugees even attempt to seek safety upon the European Continent; many nations outside of Europe offer asylum to a far greater number of those fleeing persecution. Almost 90% of all refugees choose to seek sanctuary outside of Europe. Of those fleeing conflict, who even reach Europe, Sweden, Malta, Cyprus, Austria, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and Bulgaria accept many times more refugees than does the UK. The UK's ever-diminishing (and ever more prohibitive) offering lies 15th in the Continent, behind Greece, Italy, France, Luxemburg, Finland, and most of Western Europe.

Terrorism?

On the 15th October Conservative MP David Amess was stabbed to death whilst conducting his surgery at Leigh-on-Sea in Essex. The threat level at the time of posting remains at 'Substantial' (level 3), 'Severe' (level 4) in Northern Ireland. The investigating Metropolitan Police Force has said that his death is being treated as an act of terrorism.

1 comment:

  1. Irony of ironies, Israel has newly accused six prominent Palestinian human rights groups of acting as ‘terrorist’ organisations. In alphabetical order, the six are Addameer, Al-Haq, the Bisan Center for Research and Development, Defence for Children International- Palestine, the Union of Agricultural Workers and the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees.

    B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, has said that the move is, “an act characteristic of totalitarian regimes, with the clear purpose of shutting down these organisations.”

    Terrorism!

    ReplyDelete