Britain's war on Islam
Stephen Lendman | 14.01.2011 21:23 | Anti-militarism | Anti-racism | Repression | Sheffield | World
Western vilification of Islam is longstanding, cruel, and unjustifiable. Notably post-911, they've viciously targeted Muslims for political advantage. Throughout America, continental Europe and Britain it rages, harming innocent men and women. With no regard for democratic values and justice, they're bogusly charged and imprisoned for crimes they neither planned or committed. Yet supportive media reports convict by accusation, the public unaware that supposed threats were lies, yet it repeats endlessly.
Daily Mail, 28 December 2010
Western vilification of Islam is longstanding, cruel, and unjustifiable. In his 1978 book "Orientalism," Edward Said explained a pattern of Western misinterpretation of the East, especially the Middle East. In "Culture and Imperialism" (1993), he broadened Orientalism's core argument to show the complex relationships between East and West by referring to colonizers and the colonized, "the familiar (Europe, West, us) and the strange (the Orient, East, them)."
He explained Western high-minded/moral superiority notions compared to culturally inferior Muslims. They're now portrayed as dangerous bomb-throwing terrorists, making them easy prey to wrongfully victimize.
Ramsey Clark is a former US Attorney General and International Action Center (IAC) founder. He's also a committed activist for social, economic, political, and racial justice. In his new year's message, he expressed worry and hope looking ahead, saying:
"During the past year, there has been a dangerous upsurge, largely manufactured by the media, in anti-Islamic bigotry. Simultaneously, supposedly, in the name of 'peace,' " American and Western allies have attacked and occupied non-threatening Muslim countries preemptively and lawlessly.
Notably post-911, they've viciously targeted Muslims for political advantage. Throughout America, continental Europe and Britain it rages, harming innocent men and women. With no regard for democratic values and justice, they're bogusly charged and imprisoned for crimes they neither planned or committed. Yet supportive media reports convict by accusation, the public unaware that supposed threats were lies, yet it repeats endlessly.
No wonder former Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi once told a Kuala Lumpur audience that Muslim vilification was "insensitive and irresponsible," adding that false accusations and hate are "widespread within mainstream Western society....The West should treat Islam the way it wants Islam to treat the West and vice versa. They should accept one another as equals."
Islamaphobia in Britain's Media
A January 2007 Islamic Human Rights Commission report titled, "The British Media and Muslim Representation: The Ideology of Demonisation" corroborated various studies showing UK Muslims believe British media inaccurately portray them and their religion falsely and unjustly.
In 2008, a Channel 4 Television "Dispatches" documentary, based on a Peter Oborne and James Jones "Muslims under Siege" document, revealed how UK media and political figures propagate widespread Islamophobic views, similar to America where Muslims are vilified as terrorists.
Since 2000, UK findings showed most media reports portrayed Muslims as dangerous, backward, irrational, extreme, incompatible with British values, and prone to commit terrorism. Both tabloid and major broadsheets stand guilty, including London Guardian writer Polly Tonybee once saying "I am an Islamophobe and proud of it." The Independent's Bruce Anderson wrote:
"There are widespread fears that Muslim immigrants, reinforced by political pressure and, ultimately, by terrorism, will succeed where Islamic armies failed and change irrevocably the character of European civilisation."
Author Martin Amis in the Times wrote "There is a definite urge - don't you have it? The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order." The "Muslims under Siege" document explained that:
"Islamophobia is a tremendous force for unification in British public culture. It does not merely bring liberal progressives like Polly Toynbee together with curmudgeonly Tory commentators like Bruce Anderson. It also enlists militant atheists with Christian believers."
Moreover, it's punctuated by political opportunists wrongfully charging Muslims with terrorism, taking advantage of public sentiment against a Muslim presence in Britain. More on that below.
In "Muslims under Siege," Oborne and Jones noted how mainstream society for centuries singled out an alien presence for hatred and opprobrium because they were perceived to threaten British identity. Earlier targets included Catholics, Jews, French, Germans and gays. Today it's Muslims, public enemy number one as in America.
Wrongfully vilified for their faith, they're considered fair game by hostile journalists and political opportunists, especially those on the far right. They've turned away from maligning Jews and Blacks to now focus on Muslims, but they're not alone. Mainstream politicians also made Islamaphobia Britain's remaining socially respectable form of bigotry.
They believe, like British National Party (BNP) chairman Nick Griffin, that:
"To even hint of making common cause with Islam....is political insanity....We should be positioning ourselves to take advantage for our own political ends of the growing wave of public hostility to Islam currently being whipped up by the mass media."
He and others cited Bat Ye'or's book titled, "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis," saying Europe is becoming Eurabia where Christians and Jews will be second class citizens to a new Muslim majority. Griffin sees all Europe being Islamified, threatening traditional mainstream culture. It's a short leap to inciting hysteria about terror attacks to justify Britain's war on Islam, replicating the same tactics in America and throughout Europe.
Hyping Fear, Citing Terror, Naming Names, and Rounding up the Usual Suspects
Reports regularly appear like a London Independent March 28, 2009 article headlined, "Police identify 200 children as potential terrorists," saying:
"Two hundred school children in Britain, some as young as 13, have been identified as potential terrorists by a police scheme that aims to spot youngsters who are 'vulnerable' to Islamic radicalisation."
Norman Bettison, Britain's most senior terror prevention official, said the Association of Chief Police Officers asks teachers, parents and other community figures to spot signs of extreme views, suggesting youngsters are being "groomed" by radicalizers.
"What will often manifest itself is what might be regarded as racism and the adoption of bad attitudes towards the West," he explained, adding "We are targeting criminals and would-be terrorists who happen to be cloaking themselves in Islamic rhetoric."
A Home Office spokesman said: "We are committed to stopping people becoming or supporting terrorists or violent extremists," even though Britain, like America, faces no terror threat. Claiming it is entirely bogus to hype fear for political advantage. As a result, Muslims are wrongfully scapegoated. UK media reports like US ones wrongfully convict them by accusation, the public never the wiser.
An earlier article discussed a bogus London terror plot, accessed through this link:
It explained that in America and Britain, government cooperators are paid to lawlessly entrap and testify against targeted Muslims. A so-called London Fertilizer Case used Juniad Babar, a dubious character UK media nicknamed "Supergrass."
In 2004, he agreed to cooperate with FBI agents after being indicted in June. He then pled guilty to four counts of conspiring to and providing and attempting to provide material support or resources to terrorists. A fifth count involved providing funds, goods, or services to benefit Al-Qaeda. In return for a reduced sentence, he copped a plea, requiring him to provide "substantial assistance," including entrapping and testifying against targeted Muslims, ones authorities want to frame and convict.
He was also used in London's Fertilizer Case. It involved a half-ton of ammonium nitrate, allegedly to blow up a London shopping center, nightclub and other targets. Though charges were entirely bogus, alleged "bombers" were convicted and imprisoned, despite no plot and no crime.
On December 28, New York Times writer Sheryl Stolberg headlined, "Obama's Traveling Team Stays Focused on Terror," saying:
While on vacation, he has "reliable secure voice capability" to maintain contact with his advisors on any breaking news. "In recent weeks, concerns about terrorism in Europe have spiked, with intelligence officials reporting increased chatter about threats."
No matter how bogus, hyping fear in America, across Europe and Britain has become the national sport. Alarms and/or arrests recently were made in Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and UK.
On December 29, based on suspicions only, several Muslim men (several entering from Sweden) were arrested for allegedly planning to attack the Jyllands-Posten newspaper offices, the same broadsheet that published 2005 satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. One was later released. No incriminating evidence links them to a plot. Yet they'll likely face "preliminary" terrorism related charges, Denmark's PET security police head, Jakob Scharf, saying:
"It is our assessment that this is a militant Islamic group; and they have links to international terrorist networks," even though he has no evidence proving it. Once again, guilty by accusation.
Swedish SAPO security police head Anders Thornberg said suspects were surveilled before entering Denmark based on suspicions they were planning a terror attack. Again, suspicions, no evidence.
White House spokesman Nick Shapiro approved, saying:
"We comment the work done by the Danish and Swedish authorities to disrupt this plot, and will continue to coordinate closely with them and our other European partners on all counterterrorism matters of common concern."
Even through the holiday season, likely innocent Muslims are targeted and charged. No evidence needed, just "suspicions."
On December 27, New York Times writer Alan Cowell headlined, "British Police Charge 9 Men, Arrested in Raids, With Preparing for Terrorist Acts," saying:
After a week of coordinated raids in three cities, UK police said they "charged nine of the 12 men they arrested in a case that seemed to be a sign that Europe's concerns over potential terrorist attacks were spreading."
All arrested were Muslims. Three were uncharged and released. The others appeared in London court accused of "engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism." At issue is an alleged plot to bomb unspecified targets. According to John Yates, Britain's ranking counterterrorism official:
"The operation (was) in its early stages, so we are unable to go into detail at this time about the suspected offenses," because perhaps none are planned. "However, I believe it was necessary at this time to take action in order to ensure public safety," even though saying so may be a lie, especially after admitting there's no imminent terrorist attack.
European officials, in fact, said, no specific threats were timed to coincide with the holiday season, despite alleged claims of an Al Qaeda plot at the time. Nonetheless, inflammatory news reports, including from BBC, said the men were planning attacks on the US Embassy and London Stock Exchange "to coincide with the Christmas holidays (and prepared by) reconnoitering the targets." Also that they were using parcel bomb designs from an Al Qaeda newsletter, though no bombs or clear evidence was found.
It's another case of guilt by accusation based only "on suspicion (no evidence) of the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism," but media reports suggest otherwise.
Cowell said:
"....special squads us(ed) sniffer dogs to raid four homes and an Internet cafe. They smashed windows and ceilings in the cafe and, according to witnesses, seized a dozen computers. The antiterrorism team also searched two motel rooms near a military base, where four of the detainees had registered, but the police provided no further information."
AP reported that Sue Hemming, head of the Crown Prosecution Service Counterterrorism Division said:
"I have today advised the police that nine men should be charged with conspiracy to cause explosions and with engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism with the intention of either committing acts of terrorism or assisting another to commit such acts."
BBC reported that "Police....search(ed) many properties, (but) no explosives have yet been found." When no evidence exists, conspiracy is charged. Also, "conduct in preparation" is meaningless without specifics. If they existed, they'd be stated and reported. Authorities instead said an alleged plot was in "relatively early stages," giving no credibility whatever to the charge. Nonetheless, on December 30, Reuters said a Danish court charged the three men in custody with attempting an act of terrorism.
A Final Comment
On July 7, 2005, BBC reported that three blasts struck the London Underground. Another struck a city double-decker bus (called 7/7). All occurred during the morning rush hour for maximum disruption and casualties. Prime Minister Tony Blair called them terrorist attacks. Four men were later charged. Three were Muslims, the other Jamaican-born. At precisely the same time, an anti-terror drill occurred, simulating the real attacks. It was no coincidence, raising legitimate questions about a false flag.
AP reported that the London Israeli embassy warned Scotland Yard about 7/7 in advance, and Israeli Army Radio said "Scotland Yard had intelligence warning of the attacks a short time before they occurred," but didn't act or issue alerts. Moreover, Israel's finance minister at the time, Benjamin Netanyahu, was told to skip a London economic conference where he was scheduled to speak. Other officials were also warned, but not the public. It's no stretch calling 7/7 a false flag operation to heighten fear and keep Britain and America embroiled in war.
The March 2004 Madrid train bombings occurred three days before Spain's general elections. With no supportive evidence, they were blamed on Al Qaeda. Another false flag was likely to stoke fear in Spain and throughout the West. Nearly always, Muslims are blamed. This time, Basque separatists were also named, again with no corroborating evidence.
The pattern repeats often. On June 30, 2007, a Jeep Cherokee with propane canisters crashed into Glasgow International Airport's glass doors. BBC reported that it "was in the middle of the doorway burning, (but) the car didn't actually explode. There were a few pops and bangs which presumably the petrol."
The usual suspects were named, Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists. Prime Minister Gordon Brown then said:
"We are dealing, in general term, with people who are associated with Al Qaeda"
The UK Telegraph reported:
An "unknown Al Qaeda terrorist cell (was) thought to be preparing to launch a series of Baghdad-style car bombings."
Other UK and US reports also stoked fear, ABC News saying:
"All of this comes just three weeks after what was described as an Al Qaeda graduation ceremony for suicide bombers at a training camp in Pakistan."
Neither Brown or media reports cited evidence, just fear mongering charges. Another false flag was likely to maintain public support for the war on terror that's also a war onIslam in America, continental Europe and Britain. The latest London arrests look just as bogus, especially with no hard evidence to corroborate charges.
______________________________
He explained Western high-minded/moral superiority notions compared to culturally inferior Muslims. They're now portrayed as dangerous bomb-throwing terrorists, making them easy prey to wrongfully victimize.
Ramsey Clark is a former US Attorney General and International Action Center (IAC) founder. He's also a committed activist for social, economic, political, and racial justice. In his new year's message, he expressed worry and hope looking ahead, saying:
"During the past year, there has been a dangerous upsurge, largely manufactured by the media, in anti-Islamic bigotry. Simultaneously, supposedly, in the name of 'peace,' " American and Western allies have attacked and occupied non-threatening Muslim countries preemptively and lawlessly.
Notably post-911, they've viciously targeted Muslims for political advantage. Throughout America, continental Europe and Britain it rages, harming innocent men and women. With no regard for democratic values and justice, they're bogusly charged and imprisoned for crimes they neither planned or committed. Yet supportive media reports convict by accusation, the public unaware that supposed threats were lies, yet it repeats endlessly.
No wonder former Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi once told a Kuala Lumpur audience that Muslim vilification was "insensitive and irresponsible," adding that false accusations and hate are "widespread within mainstream Western society....The West should treat Islam the way it wants Islam to treat the West and vice versa. They should accept one another as equals."
Islamaphobia in Britain's Media
A January 2007 Islamic Human Rights Commission report titled, "The British Media and Muslim Representation: The Ideology of Demonisation" corroborated various studies showing UK Muslims believe British media inaccurately portray them and their religion falsely and unjustly.
In 2008, a Channel 4 Television "Dispatches" documentary, based on a Peter Oborne and James Jones "Muslims under Siege" document, revealed how UK media and political figures propagate widespread Islamophobic views, similar to America where Muslims are vilified as terrorists.
Since 2000, UK findings showed most media reports portrayed Muslims as dangerous, backward, irrational, extreme, incompatible with British values, and prone to commit terrorism. Both tabloid and major broadsheets stand guilty, including London Guardian writer Polly Tonybee once saying "I am an Islamophobe and proud of it." The Independent's Bruce Anderson wrote:
"There are widespread fears that Muslim immigrants, reinforced by political pressure and, ultimately, by terrorism, will succeed where Islamic armies failed and change irrevocably the character of European civilisation."
Author Martin Amis in the Times wrote "There is a definite urge - don't you have it? The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order." The "Muslims under Siege" document explained that:
"Islamophobia is a tremendous force for unification in British public culture. It does not merely bring liberal progressives like Polly Toynbee together with curmudgeonly Tory commentators like Bruce Anderson. It also enlists militant atheists with Christian believers."
Moreover, it's punctuated by political opportunists wrongfully charging Muslims with terrorism, taking advantage of public sentiment against a Muslim presence in Britain. More on that below.
In "Muslims under Siege," Oborne and Jones noted how mainstream society for centuries singled out an alien presence for hatred and opprobrium because they were perceived to threaten British identity. Earlier targets included Catholics, Jews, French, Germans and gays. Today it's Muslims, public enemy number one as in America.
Wrongfully vilified for their faith, they're considered fair game by hostile journalists and political opportunists, especially those on the far right. They've turned away from maligning Jews and Blacks to now focus on Muslims, but they're not alone. Mainstream politicians also made Islamaphobia Britain's remaining socially respectable form of bigotry.
They believe, like British National Party (BNP) chairman Nick Griffin, that:
"To even hint of making common cause with Islam....is political insanity....We should be positioning ourselves to take advantage for our own political ends of the growing wave of public hostility to Islam currently being whipped up by the mass media."
He and others cited Bat Ye'or's book titled, "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis," saying Europe is becoming Eurabia where Christians and Jews will be second class citizens to a new Muslim majority. Griffin sees all Europe being Islamified, threatening traditional mainstream culture. It's a short leap to inciting hysteria about terror attacks to justify Britain's war on Islam, replicating the same tactics in America and throughout Europe.
Hyping Fear, Citing Terror, Naming Names, and Rounding up the Usual Suspects
Reports regularly appear like a London Independent March 28, 2009 article headlined, "Police identify 200 children as potential terrorists," saying:
"Two hundred school children in Britain, some as young as 13, have been identified as potential terrorists by a police scheme that aims to spot youngsters who are 'vulnerable' to Islamic radicalisation."
Norman Bettison, Britain's most senior terror prevention official, said the Association of Chief Police Officers asks teachers, parents and other community figures to spot signs of extreme views, suggesting youngsters are being "groomed" by radicalizers.
"What will often manifest itself is what might be regarded as racism and the adoption of bad attitudes towards the West," he explained, adding "We are targeting criminals and would-be terrorists who happen to be cloaking themselves in Islamic rhetoric."
A Home Office spokesman said: "We are committed to stopping people becoming or supporting terrorists or violent extremists," even though Britain, like America, faces no terror threat. Claiming it is entirely bogus to hype fear for political advantage. As a result, Muslims are wrongfully scapegoated. UK media reports like US ones wrongfully convict them by accusation, the public never the wiser.
An earlier article discussed a bogus London terror plot, accessed through this link:
It explained that in America and Britain, government cooperators are paid to lawlessly entrap and testify against targeted Muslims. A so-called London Fertilizer Case used Juniad Babar, a dubious character UK media nicknamed "Supergrass."
In 2004, he agreed to cooperate with FBI agents after being indicted in June. He then pled guilty to four counts of conspiring to and providing and attempting to provide material support or resources to terrorists. A fifth count involved providing funds, goods, or services to benefit Al-Qaeda. In return for a reduced sentence, he copped a plea, requiring him to provide "substantial assistance," including entrapping and testifying against targeted Muslims, ones authorities want to frame and convict.
He was also used in London's Fertilizer Case. It involved a half-ton of ammonium nitrate, allegedly to blow up a London shopping center, nightclub and other targets. Though charges were entirely bogus, alleged "bombers" were convicted and imprisoned, despite no plot and no crime.
On December 28, New York Times writer Sheryl Stolberg headlined, "Obama's Traveling Team Stays Focused on Terror," saying:
While on vacation, he has "reliable secure voice capability" to maintain contact with his advisors on any breaking news. "In recent weeks, concerns about terrorism in Europe have spiked, with intelligence officials reporting increased chatter about threats."
No matter how bogus, hyping fear in America, across Europe and Britain has become the national sport. Alarms and/or arrests recently were made in Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and UK.
On December 29, based on suspicions only, several Muslim men (several entering from Sweden) were arrested for allegedly planning to attack the Jyllands-Posten newspaper offices, the same broadsheet that published 2005 satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. One was later released. No incriminating evidence links them to a plot. Yet they'll likely face "preliminary" terrorism related charges, Denmark's PET security police head, Jakob Scharf, saying:
"It is our assessment that this is a militant Islamic group; and they have links to international terrorist networks," even though he has no evidence proving it. Once again, guilty by accusation.
Swedish SAPO security police head Anders Thornberg said suspects were surveilled before entering Denmark based on suspicions they were planning a terror attack. Again, suspicions, no evidence.
White House spokesman Nick Shapiro approved, saying:
"We comment the work done by the Danish and Swedish authorities to disrupt this plot, and will continue to coordinate closely with them and our other European partners on all counterterrorism matters of common concern."
Even through the holiday season, likely innocent Muslims are targeted and charged. No evidence needed, just "suspicions."
On December 27, New York Times writer Alan Cowell headlined, "British Police Charge 9 Men, Arrested in Raids, With Preparing for Terrorist Acts," saying:
After a week of coordinated raids in three cities, UK police said they "charged nine of the 12 men they arrested in a case that seemed to be a sign that Europe's concerns over potential terrorist attacks were spreading."
All arrested were Muslims. Three were uncharged and released. The others appeared in London court accused of "engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism." At issue is an alleged plot to bomb unspecified targets. According to John Yates, Britain's ranking counterterrorism official:
"The operation (was) in its early stages, so we are unable to go into detail at this time about the suspected offenses," because perhaps none are planned. "However, I believe it was necessary at this time to take action in order to ensure public safety," even though saying so may be a lie, especially after admitting there's no imminent terrorist attack.
European officials, in fact, said, no specific threats were timed to coincide with the holiday season, despite alleged claims of an Al Qaeda plot at the time. Nonetheless, inflammatory news reports, including from BBC, said the men were planning attacks on the US Embassy and London Stock Exchange "to coincide with the Christmas holidays (and prepared by) reconnoitering the targets." Also that they were using parcel bomb designs from an Al Qaeda newsletter, though no bombs or clear evidence was found.
It's another case of guilt by accusation based only "on suspicion (no evidence) of the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism," but media reports suggest otherwise.
Cowell said:
"....special squads us(ed) sniffer dogs to raid four homes and an Internet cafe. They smashed windows and ceilings in the cafe and, according to witnesses, seized a dozen computers. The antiterrorism team also searched two motel rooms near a military base, where four of the detainees had registered, but the police provided no further information."
AP reported that Sue Hemming, head of the Crown Prosecution Service Counterterrorism Division said:
"I have today advised the police that nine men should be charged with conspiracy to cause explosions and with engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism with the intention of either committing acts of terrorism or assisting another to commit such acts."
BBC reported that "Police....search(ed) many properties, (but) no explosives have yet been found." When no evidence exists, conspiracy is charged. Also, "conduct in preparation" is meaningless without specifics. If they existed, they'd be stated and reported. Authorities instead said an alleged plot was in "relatively early stages," giving no credibility whatever to the charge. Nonetheless, on December 30, Reuters said a Danish court charged the three men in custody with attempting an act of terrorism.
A Final Comment
On July 7, 2005, BBC reported that three blasts struck the London Underground. Another struck a city double-decker bus (called 7/7). All occurred during the morning rush hour for maximum disruption and casualties. Prime Minister Tony Blair called them terrorist attacks. Four men were later charged. Three were Muslims, the other Jamaican-born. At precisely the same time, an anti-terror drill occurred, simulating the real attacks. It was no coincidence, raising legitimate questions about a false flag.
AP reported that the London Israeli embassy warned Scotland Yard about 7/7 in advance, and Israeli Army Radio said "Scotland Yard had intelligence warning of the attacks a short time before they occurred," but didn't act or issue alerts. Moreover, Israel's finance minister at the time, Benjamin Netanyahu, was told to skip a London economic conference where he was scheduled to speak. Other officials were also warned, but not the public. It's no stretch calling 7/7 a false flag operation to heighten fear and keep Britain and America embroiled in war.
The March 2004 Madrid train bombings occurred three days before Spain's general elections. With no supportive evidence, they were blamed on Al Qaeda. Another false flag was likely to stoke fear in Spain and throughout the West. Nearly always, Muslims are blamed. This time, Basque separatists were also named, again with no corroborating evidence.
The pattern repeats often. On June 30, 2007, a Jeep Cherokee with propane canisters crashed into Glasgow International Airport's glass doors. BBC reported that it "was in the middle of the doorway burning, (but) the car didn't actually explode. There were a few pops and bangs which presumably the petrol."
The usual suspects were named, Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists. Prime Minister Gordon Brown then said:
"We are dealing, in general term, with people who are associated with Al Qaeda"
The UK Telegraph reported:
An "unknown Al Qaeda terrorist cell (was) thought to be preparing to launch a series of Baghdad-style car bombings."
Other UK and US reports also stoked fear, ABC News saying:
"All of this comes just three weeks after what was described as an Al Qaeda graduation ceremony for suicide bombers at a training camp in Pakistan."
Neither Brown or media reports cited evidence, just fear mongering charges. Another false flag was likely to maintain public support for the war on terror that's also a war onIslam in America, continental Europe and Britain. The latest London arrests look just as bogus, especially with no hard evidence to corroborate charges.
______________________________
Stephen Lendman
Homepage:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/01/britains-war-on-islam.html
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
related links
14.01.2011 21:34
from the archives:
UK planning to evacuate expats from the Persian Gulf region in the event of war with Iran
Dandelion Salad, 30 December 2010
Cameron: We have not done enough to stop extremist Islamism
9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum, 16 December 2010
"Enemies of Britain"
911Blogger, 4 November 2010
MI6 chief: We need intelligence operations to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons
Dandelion Salad, 28 October 2010
‘Mumbai-style terror plot’ against UK uncovered
Dandelion Salad, 29 September 2010
British tabloid press: Britain is now harbouring a menacing enemy within
Indymedia UK, 13 March 2009
__________________________________
dandelion salad
The failure of academia: British university endorses the "War on Terrorism"
14.01.2011 21:41
The failure of academia: British university endorses the "War on Terrorism"
The book that was not meant to be published
by Ramzy Baroud, 14 January 2011
Deepak Tripathi’s most recent book, Breeding Ground: Afghanistan and the Origins of Islamist Terrorism (Potomac Books) raises several issues, both within and outside of its content. It is based on research for his doctoral dissertation, the qualification for which he never received.
Tripathi, a former BBC producer, is immensely proud of his latest volume, even while it is associated with a tumultuous experience at the University of Sussex, a renowned British university.
For a while, things had gone according to plan, and the future seemed promising. Tripathi was told to prepare for his graduation by his supervisor, Dr. Stephen Burman, Dean of the School of Humanities.
Tripathi is an accomplished researcher and a prolific writer. He had every reason to believe his research, which began in 2002, would lead to earning his PhD from the university’s American Studies Program. His findings, which partly relied on the Cold War International History Archive material of the Smithsonian Institute, were praised by such intellectuals as Walter LaFeber, Howard Zinn and Johan Galtung.
Moreover, Tripathi already had an impressive and well-respected background in the field. His career at BBC News (1977-2000) would have gone on longer, were it not for him falling seriously ill with heart disease. Some of his noteworthy achievements have included setting up the BBC Bureau in Kabul in the early 1990s, covering conflict in India and Sir Lanka, and contributing to public understanding of many matters involving this part of the world. His previous book, Overcoming the Bush Legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan (Potomac Books, March 2010) helped many to decipher the power rivalries in South and West Asia, and specially US foreign policy regarding these regions.
Tripathi’s latest work, Breeding Ground was initially slated as his doctoral dissertation. That work was already well-received in many circles and yet failed to meet the examiners’ expectations suggests to Tripathi that biased political agendas were involved.
Despite the triumphant release of his book, the author feels it is important to revisit the academic ordeal, as both issues are intrinsically linked.
The “Viva”, or the oral examination of a doctoral thesis, usually takes an hour. In Tripathi’s case, it involved nearly two hours of “sheer hostility”. “Viva was not an oral examination, but an-hour-and-fifty-minutes of sustained interrogation during which the external examiner shouted throughout, not allowing me to answer, while objecting to matters of trivial importance.” All of this seemed to negate not only the feedback of Tripathi’s supervisor, but also the rules of the university.
Tripathi further alleges that the internal examiner didn’t read the thesis, as “no markings or signs of handling were found on any of pages.” As for the external examiner, he seems to have read only a third of what took years for Tripathi to studiously research and write. This was evident by the “angry notes on about a third of the pages, then nothing.”
Tripathi speculates that what has taken place has less to do with his research or writing skills, but more on his take on the subject matter and the affiliation of the examiners.
The internal examiner was newly appointed Pro-Vice Chancellor, whose academic interests include the Northern Ireland conflict. She has co-authored a book on the subject of policing, and has ties with security establishments in Britain and the United States, where she became an advisor to the Homeland Security Management Institute, University of Long Island, New York. She also regularly ran training courses for the British military.
When contacted regarding this matter, the internal examiner, who had since then left her post at the University of Sussex, declined to comment - possibly because of academic confidentiality associated with such cases.
The external examiner, a career military officer, specialized in British military doctrines, the application of force and counterinsurgency. He had joined the Northern Ireland security service at the height of the conflict in the 1970s. Upon retiring from the British military in 2003, he was immediately appointed Professor of Politics and International Law and Head of the Department at Royal Holloway.
The external examiner too declined to comment “on the basis of confidentiality as between the University and the candidate.” He is also no longer affiliated with the university.
Tripathi’s thesis was submitted in early December 2006, with his supervisor’s blessings. However, Dr. Stephen Burman was absent from the viva, where Tripathi found himself defending his ideas to “two academics with strong ties to the military”. Considering Tripathi’s approach, which shows little enthusiasm for military solutions to convoluted conflicts, he felt that his research stood little chance. “It was more of an assault, than a discussion,” he said. “It was as if I was accused of some wrong-doing and had to defend myself.” Even the Cold War International History Archive material of the Smithsonian Institute was deemed “unacceptable” by his examiners, according to Tripathi.
To rectify the problem, Tripathi was told by the external examiner that he “would have to rewrite the thesis in a year, without the Cold War History Archive that gave (him) access to the Russian and East German archives, and resubmit only for MPhil.” Even then, Tripathi would still need to endure another viva.
Tripathi feels betrayed. For a man who has spent most of his adult life helping many understand the nature of conflict in areas where the US, Britain and other major powers have played a seminal role, the rejection - and the style in which it was expressed– has come as a major shock.
For Tripathi, there is no question that he was punished for daring to chart a course deemed unfavorable from the viewpoint of academics with links to the military. In some countries, government interference in academic matters is hardly shocking. But in this case – especially if Tripathi’s assertions are indicative of a larger phenomenon – the matter is of immense urgency.
For Tripathi’s readers, the story may still have a happy ending. Although the author is yet to receive his academic degree, the book is now widely available for all to read.
* Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.
Ramzy Baroud
Homepage:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22778
Stuff and Nonsense
14.01.2011 21:53
Given one man died and another was convicted and jailed for life, that is a pretty big claim. Eye witnesses described the man who died as shouting allah akhbar as he threw petrol around in an attempt to murder civilians.
Here's a good idea. Perhaps we can condemn racism, the US and its imperialism, the Daily Mail and Islamism - all at the same time.
Simples.
Paul Stott
Homepage:
http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/
Flashback: The "demonization" of Muslims and the battle for oil
14.01.2011 22:02
"The New Middle East"
from the archives:
The "demonization" of Muslims and the battle for oil
by Michel Chossudovsky, 4 January 2007
Throughout history, "wars of religion" have served to obscure the economic and strategic interests behind the conquest and invasion of foreign lands. "Wars of religion" were invariably fought with a view to securing control over trading routes and natural resources.
The Crusades extending from the 11th to the 14th Century are often presented by historians as "a continuous series of military-religious expeditions made by European Christians in the hope of wresting the Holy Land from the infidel Turks." The objective of the Crusades, however, had little to do with religion. The Crusades largely consisted, through military action, in challenging the dominion of the Muslim merchant societies, which controlled the Eastern trade routes.
The "Just War" supported the Crusades. War was waged with the support of the Catholic Church, acting as an instrument of religious propaganda and indoctrination, which was used in the enlistment throughout Europe of thousands of peasants, serfs and urban vagabonds.
America's Crusade in Central Asia and the Middle East
In the eyes of public opinion, possessing a "just cause" for waging war is central. A war is said to be Just if it is waged on moral, religious or ethical grounds.
America's Crusade in Central Asia and the Middle East is no exception. The "war on terrorism" purports to defend the American Homeland and protect the "civilized world", it is upheld as a "war of religion", a "clash of civilizations", when in fact the main objective of this war is to secure control and corporate ownership over the region's extensive oil wealth, while also imposing under the helm of the IMF and the World Bank (now under the leadership of Paul Wolfowitz), the privatization of State enterprises and the transfer of the countries' economic assets to foreign capital. .
The Just War theory upholds war as a "humanitarian operation". It serves to camouflage the real objectives of the military operation, while providing a moral and principled image to the invaders. In its contemporary version, it calls for military intervention on ethical and moral grounds against "rogue states" and "Islamic terrorists", which are threatening the Homeland.
Possessing a "just cause" for waging war is central to the Bush administration's justification for invading and occupying both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Taught in US military academies, a modern-day version of the "Just War" theory has been embodied into US military doctrine. The "war on terrorism" and the notion of "preemption" are predicated on the right to "self defense." They define "when it is permissible to wage war": jus ad bellum.
Jus ad bellum serves to build a consensus within the Armed Forces command structures. It also serves to convince the troops that the enemy is "evil" and that they are fighting for a "just cause". More generally, the Just War theory in its modern day version is an integral part of war propaganda and media disinformation, applied to gain public support for a war agenda.
The Battle for Oil. Demonization of the Enemy
War builds a humanitarian agenda. Throughout history, vilification of the enemy has been applied time and again. The Crusades consisted in demonizing the Turks as infidels and heretics, with a view to justifying military action.
Demonization serves geopolitical and economic objectives. Likewise, the campaign against "Islamic terrorism" (which is supported covertly by US intelligence) supports the conquest of oil wealth. The term "Islamo-fascism," serves to degrade the policies, institutions, values and social fabric of Muslim countries, while also upholding the tenets of "Western democracy" and the "free market" as the only alternative for these countries.
The US led war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region consists in gaining control over more than sixty percent of the world's supplies of oil and natural gas. The Anglo-American oil giants also seek to gain control over oil and gas pipeline routes out of the region. (See table below and maps above).
Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, possess between 66.2 and 75.9 percent of total oil reserves, depending on the source and methodology of the estimate. (See table below).
In contrast, the United States of America has barely 2 percent of total oil reserves. Western countries including its major oil producers ( Canada, the US, Norway, the UK, Denmark and Australia) control approximately 4 percent of total oil reserves. (In the alternative estimate of the Oil and Gas Journal which includes Canada's oil sands, this percentage would be of the the order of 16.5%. See table below).
The largest share of the World's oil reserves lies in a region extending (North) from the tip of Yemen to the Caspian sea basin and (East) from the Eastern Mediterranean coastline to the Persian Gulf. This broader Middle East- Central Asian region, which is the theater of the US-led "war on terrorism" encompasses according to the estimates of World Oil, more than sixty percent of the World's oil reserves. (See table below).
Iraq has five times more oil than the United States.
Muslim countries possess at least 16 times more oil than the Western countries.
The major non-Muslim oil reserve countries are Venezuela, Russia, Mexico, China and Brazil. (See table)
Demonization is applied to an enemy, which possesses three quarters of the world's oil reserves. "Axis of evil", "rogue States", "failed nations", "Islamic terrorists": demonization and vilification are the ideological pillar of America's "war on terror". They serve as a casus belli for waging the battle for oil.
The Battle for Oil requires the demonization of those who possess the oil. The enemy is characterized as evil, with a view to justifying military action including the mass killing of civilians. The Middle East Central Asian region is heavily militarized. (See map). The oil fields are encircled: NATO war ships stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean (as part of a UN "peace keeping" operation), US Carrier Strike Groups and Destroyer Squadrons in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian deployed as part of the "war on terrorism".
The ultimate objective, combining military action, covert intelligence operations and war propaganda, is to break down the national fabric and transform sovereign countries into open economic territories, where natural resources can be plundered and confiscated under "free market" supervision. This control also extends to strategic oil and gas pipeline corridors (e.g. Afghanistan).
Demonization is a PSYOP, used to sway public opinion and build a consensus in favor of war. Psychological warfare is directly sponsored by the Pentagon and the US intelligence apparatus. It is not limited to assassinating or executing the rulers of Muslim countries, it extends to entire populations. It also targets Muslims in Western Europe and North America. It purports to break national consciousness and the ability to resist the invader. It denigrates Islam. It creates social divisions. It is intended to divide national societies and ultimately trigger "civil war". While it creates an environment which facilitates the outright appropriation of the countries' resources, at the same time, it potentially backlashes, creates a new national consciousness, develops inter-ethnic solidarity, brings people together in confronting the invaders.
It is worth noting that the triggering of sectarian divisions and "civil wars" is contemplated in the process of redrawing of the map of the Middle East, where countries are slated to be broken up and transformed into territories. The map of the New Middle East, although not official, has been used by the US National War Academy. It was recently published in the Armed Forces Journal (June 2006). In this map, nation states are broken up, international borders are redefined along sectarian-ethnic lines, broadly in accordance with the interests of the Anglo-American oil giants (See Map above). The map has also been used in a training program at NATO's Defense College for senior military officers.
The Oil Lies in Muslim Lands
The oil lies in Muslim lands. Vilification of the enemy is part and parcel of Eurasia energy geopolitics. It is a direct function of the geographic distribution of the World's oil and gas reserves. If the oil were in countries occupied predominantly by Buddhists or Hindus, one would expect that US foreign policy would be directed against Buddhists and Hindus, who would also be the object of vilification.
In the Middle East war theater, Iran and Syria, which are part of the "axis of evil", are the next targets according to official US statements.
US sponsored "civil wars" have also been conducted in several other strategic oil and gas regions including Nigeria, the Sudan, Colombia, Somalia, Yemen, Angola, not to mention Chechnya and several republics of the former Soviet Union. Ongoing US sponsored "civil wars", which often include the channelling of covert support to paramilitary groups, have been triggered in the Darfur region of Sudan as well as in Somalia, Darfur possesses extensive oil reserves. In Somalia, lucrative concessions have already been granted to four Anglo-American oil giants.
"According to documents obtained by The Times, nearly two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco [now part of BP], Chevron and Phillips in the final years before Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown and the nation plunged into chaos in January, 1991. Industry sources said the companies holding the rights to the most promising concessions are hoping that the Bush Administration's decision to send U.S. troops to safeguard aid shipments to Somalia will also help protect their multimillion-dollar investments there." (America's Interests in Somalia, Global Research, 2002)
Globalization and the Conquest of the World's Energy Resources
The collective demonization of Muslims, including the vilification of Islam, applied Worldwide, constitutes at the ideological level, an instrument of conquest of the World's energy resources. It is part of the broader economic, political mechanisms underlying the New World Order.
Michel Chossudovsky
Homepage:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20070104&articleId=4347
Muslims reject war on terror story
15.01.2011 12:38
Opinion polls show that Muslims do not believe the West’s line on the War on Terror.
According to a 2006 poll by Pew, in the least sceptical Muslim nation, Jordan, 53% do not believe Arabs did 911. In Pakistan only 5% believed the official 911 story whereas 17% of UK Muslims do. UK. Indeed, most Pakistanis believe most terrorism in their country is the work of Blackwater, a US military contractor.
An unscientific, 2009 poll claims that 3 UK Muslims out of 1511, supported Bin Laden’s war against the West. A 2007, Channel 4 poll showed that nearly one quarter of UK Muslims believe the government did 7/7.
We are told that UK Muslims are ‘radicalised’ by the Internet. But the same Internet will tell Muslims that Al Qaida is a branch of American Intelligence.
Muslims know about the Birmingham Sparkbrook surveillance cameras and the lengths the UK security services go to spy on Muslims.
Are Muslims and UK Muslims really going to blow themselves up for an organisation that is likely to be run by CIA?
• Europe’s Muslims more moderate
• British Muslim Poll
• Survey: ‘Government hasn’t told truth about 7/7’
• U.S. Is a Top Villain in Pakistan’s Conspiracy Talk
Simon