The bombs in London and Glasgow may well be down to Jihadists, but let's look a little more deeply into the matter.
'Strategia della Tensione'
With regards to the bombs found in London and Glasgow, in my opinion there are three possibilities:
1) Jihadist terrorists planted them. This is entirely possible. There
are dangerous fanatics in this country who espouse the machismo
(actually anti-Islamic) politics of nihilism and in their current
incarnation they and their bogus ideology are largely the product of:
a) Physical (economics) and metaphysical (patriarchy, anti-modernismand postcolonial maladjustment) crises within the supposedly
self-conscious Ummah (the global Muslim populations).
b) The failure of both socialism and capitalism in Asia and North Africa.
c) Political, economic and demographic factors specific to the UK
relating to marginalisation (eg. the class system, racism,
concentration of power and wealth in the metrolitan centre and its
corollary of geographical atomisation).
d) Ninety years of anti-progressive and incessantly aggressive
perceived realpolitik on the part of successive US and UK (colonial and
neo-colonial) governments (eg. Afghanistan, 1929, Iran, 1953,
Indonesia, 1965, Pakistan, 1950s-now, Iraq, 1980s-now, Saudi Arabia-right-from-the-start)
in order to perpetuate hegemony over the region's natural and industrial resources.
People have been screaming about these fanatics and all these
other issues for decades.
'British Muslims for Secular Democracy', an
organisation of which I am a member, was set up last year by
journalist, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, to begin to try and reverse at least
some aspects of this toxic zeitgeist, at least in the world of
information: www.bmsd.org.uk
2) The State planted them, either directly or, more likely, through
State-infiltrated, groomed Jihadist cells. Gordon Brown announced that he wants
the legal period of detention-without-charge to rise to 28 days, no
doubt as part of an imminent even more draconian assault on civil
liberties than hitherto we have seen, but alternatively as a sop to the security services.
During the 1970s and '80s, in Italy, the phrase, 'Stategia della Tensione' ('strategy of tension' -
let's call it ST) was coined in reference to a policy adopted by the
Italian State, in association with the CIA (recently admitted to in the
latter's just-released 'family jewels'). To quote Wikipedia: "By the
term 'strategy' one refers to what feeds the fear of the people towards one
particular group. [ST] is a way to control and manipulate public
opinion using fear, propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare
and agentsprovocateurs as well as false flag terrorist actions (including
bombings)." If Point 2 is correct, then we can expect more of the same
(I wrote point 2 after the London bombs but before the Glasgow bomb).
3) The Intelligence Services planted them, through patsies (Jihadist cells)
to pressure the new Brown government to accept the security agenda. Blair essentially became a wholesale agent of the security state; Brown may not be, yet.
1 and either 2 or 3 may not be mutually exclsuive. Either way, the same end is attained: we are terrorised and may be likely to accept more surveillance, more degradation of 'the way we live', the freedoms that were fought for (often against the State
itself) over a period of centuries. 2 and 3 are anathema and will not be discussed
in the mainstream media, but if it were another country that were being discussed,
say, Russia, Algeria or even to some extent Italy, the mainstream media would not hesitate to discuss them.
No doubt, there will be a chorus of very sensible, objective, logical and purposeful guys (don't ask me why, but it's usually guys) who will shower the 'magazine with epistles declaring its
author hysterical and paranoid, one of those British Muslims (please
note, not a homogeneous group) who prefer to seek comfort in denial
rather than face the awful facts of their own 'backyard'. In refutation
of this predictable response, I would refer the reader to Point 1,
above, and also to the numerous articles (some of them in The Independent, The Herald and the Times), essays and speeches which I have published and delivered on the subject as well as to my fictional, poetic and dramatic work, to which I would recommend they expose themselves. If you think ST can't happen here and you believe that the hard state operates with some sort of in-built moral compass fixed
around Hollywood-esque character arcs like the actors in, say,
'Spooks', or if you think that the hard state acts with the prime
directive of safeguarding the British people, then I have just two
answers: Northern Ireland; David Kelly. There is no moral compass. It's all
about power.
Peace and love,
Suhayl Saadi
With regards to the bombs found in London and Glasgow, in my opinion there are three possibilities:
1) Jihadist terrorists planted them. This is entirely possible. There
are dangerous fanatics in this country who espouse the machismo
(actually anti-Islamic) politics of nihilism and in their current
incarnation they and their bogus ideology are largely the product of:
a) Physical (economics) and metaphysical (patriarchy, anti-modernismand postcolonial maladjustment) crises within the supposedly
self-conscious Ummah (the global Muslim populations).
b) The failure of both socialism and capitalism in Asia and North Africa.
c) Political, economic and demographic factors specific to the UK
relating to marginalisation (eg. the class system, racism,
concentration of power and wealth in the metrolitan centre and its
corollary of geographical atomisation).
d) Ninety years of anti-progressive and incessantly aggressive
perceived realpolitik on the part of successive US and UK (colonial and
neo-colonial) governments (eg. Afghanistan, 1929, Iran, 1953,
Indonesia, 1965, Pakistan, 1950s-now, Iraq, 1980s-now, Saudi Arabia-right-from-the-start)
in order to perpetuate hegemony over the region's natural and industrial resources.
People have been screaming about these fanatics and all these
other issues for decades.
'British Muslims for Secular Democracy', an
organisation of which I am a member, was set up last year by
journalist, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, to begin to try and reverse at least
some aspects of this toxic zeitgeist, at least in the world of
information: www.bmsd.org.uk
2) The State planted them, either directly or, more likely, through
State-infiltrated, groomed Jihadist cells. Gordon Brown announced that he wants
the legal period of detention-without-charge to rise to 28 days, no
doubt as part of an imminent even more draconian assault on civil
liberties than hitherto we have seen, but alternatively as a sop to the security services.
During the 1970s and '80s, in Italy, the phrase, 'Stategia della Tensione' ('strategy of tension' -
let's call it ST) was coined in reference to a policy adopted by the
Italian State, in association with the CIA (recently admitted to in the
latter's just-released 'family jewels'). To quote Wikipedia: "By the
term 'strategy' one refers to what feeds the fear of the people towards one
particular group. [ST] is a way to control and manipulate public
opinion using fear, propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare
and agentsprovocateurs as well as false flag terrorist actions (including
bombings)." If Point 2 is correct, then we can expect more of the same
(I wrote point 2 after the London bombs but before the Glasgow bomb).
3) The Intelligence Services planted them, through patsies (Jihadist cells)
to pressure the new Brown government to accept the security agenda. Blair essentially became a wholesale agent of the security state; Brown may not be, yet.
1 and either 2 or 3 may not be mutually exclsuive. Either way, the same end is attained: we are terrorised and may be likely to accept more surveillance, more degradation of 'the way we live', the freedoms that were fought for (often against the State
itself) over a period of centuries. 2 and 3 are anathema and will not be discussed
in the mainstream media, but if it were another country that were being discussed,
say, Russia, Algeria or even to some extent Italy, the mainstream media would not hesitate to discuss them.
No doubt, there will be a chorus of very sensible, objective, logical and purposeful guys (don't ask me why, but it's usually guys) who will shower the 'magazine with epistles declaring its
author hysterical and paranoid, one of those British Muslims (please
note, not a homogeneous group) who prefer to seek comfort in denial
rather than face the awful facts of their own 'backyard'. In refutation
of this predictable response, I would refer the reader to Point 1,
above, and also to the numerous articles (some of them in The Independent, The Herald and the Times), essays and speeches which I have published and delivered on the subject as well as to my fictional, poetic and dramatic work, to which I would recommend they expose themselves. If you think ST can't happen here and you believe that the hard state operates with some sort of in-built moral compass fixed
around Hollywood-esque character arcs like the actors in, say,
'Spooks', or if you think that the hard state acts with the prime
directive of safeguarding the British people, then I have just two
answers: Northern Ireland; David Kelly. There is no moral compass. It's all
about power.
Peace and love,
Suhayl Saadi
e-mail:
Homepage:
