In writing about the Rotherham case in my previous article, it became apparent that there is a common practice amongst the elite and establishment to downplay crimes perpetrated by non-Muslims of Caucasian race. From painting the neocon-inspired far-right terrorism as “lone-wolf” acts perpetrated by people with psychological issues, to covering up middle-class “white” paedophile networks operating in the government, failing to identify it as perhaps endemic of the white race (as has been done with the case of perpetrators in Rotherham), the media and politicians consistently downplay the gravity of crimes perpetrated by those who are not the victim of political expedience architected by the neocon element.
The effect of this is that white criminals in relative terms are seen as victim of circumstances and/or are not given the “shock and awe” treatment by the media, whereas crimes by Muslims are magnified as though they are the majority group, the crime is made a characteristic of the minority and draconian legislation ensues to reinforce the narrative for good measure.
The killing of Foley resulted in Theresa May and Boris Johnson reinforcing their governmentally-recognised extremism. David Cameron has now decided to add his voice to the neocon choir. Cameron deflected any blame from the hawkish, neocon-inspired foreign policy of Britain and the West as a cause for the apparent rise in the terror threat. In supporting his absurd claim he made another ridiculous statement, striking a neocon-tuned chord with Tony Blair: the terrorist threat was not created by the Iraq war. In fact, “It existed even before the horrific attacks on 9/11, themselves some time before the war.”
I emphatically agree. Terrorism existed as British foreign policy during Britain’s colonialist outrages against non-white, Muslim populations. Who from amongst the Muslims can forget Britain starving thousands of non-combatant believers of the sacred city of Madina who refused to rebel against the Ottoman khilafa? Or the massacre at Jallian wala bagh? Or the imprisonment and lynching of Ulama, the “Islamists” of the early 20th century, to instil fear amongst the colonised? This of course would contradict the “white” narrative and therefore would not dawn upon Cameron. In fact, Cameron would probably twist the colonialism as some sort of freedom struggle. No wait, he has done that already…
Those who have gone down in history in the West as terrorists have claimed foreign policy as their motivations. In a recording attributed to Osama bin Laden, he stated that,
“God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it.”
Michael Adebelajo in his own words stated that he was motivated to do what he did “because of foreign policy”.
Foreign policy and most certainly domestic policy affecting the Muslim minority of Britain is intrinsically connected to core grievances. To dismiss it as some sort of incidental, “perceived” notion is ignoring the elephant in the room.
The tearing up of the Ottoman caliphate, the pain felt by Muslims from the wounds inflicted by the British-instigated rebellion of the Arabs (against the Caliphate), the imposition of artificial boundaries based on the Western construction of an individualist nationalism upon a collectivist people who give preference to their tribes and faith over flags based upon the Sykes-Picot agreement, and the resultant despotic regimes sprouting from this tragedy who are today friendly with Western powers which in turn continue to exert influence over the resources of these arbitrary nation states, are all precursors to the precarious predicament erupting in the Middle East.
When the domestic policy forces Muslims to adopt “British values” of democracy and rule of law, yet the foreign policy results in investigations of organisations linked to a democratically elected government in Egypt at the behest of British-inserted Saudi monarchy, which also incidentally finances a dictator (El-Sisi) whose security forces carry “out one of the world’s largest killings of demonstrators in a single day in recent history” (which is conveniently ignored by the West), then “perceived” grievances become “actualised” grievances.
When government officials including Cameron himself look for military solutions to deal with the situation in Iraq and the government invokes government bodies as weapons to harass and harangue humanitarian organisations and activists, yet pursues “politically correct” policies towards the Zionist entity’s terrorism in Gaza and remains virtually silent on the issue of British Zionists serving in the terrorist army that is the IDF, then the term “grievance” even in Cameron’s “perception” of it being “perceived”, is an understatement.
In concluding his statement, Cameron highlights that the root cause of the architected, exaggerated threat to UK security (Theresa May admitted there is no intelligence to suggest an impending attack) is a “poisonous ideology”. In the selective analysis which leads to his conclusions, he identifies “Islamism” as that ideology. Contrarily, after an analysis of the policies being pushed, if there is an ideology wreaking havoc domestically and around the world, it is the Zionist, neoconservative ideology which has been driven by the likes of Douglas Murray, his Henry Jackson Society and other neocons like Michael Gove, William Shawcross, George Osborne and Boris Johnson. The neoconservative impact has done nothing but continually erode the rights of every single Briton. In protecting “our way of life”, which seems to be the elitist, Eton College, supremacist way of life, Cameron and his neocon crew are destroying domestically all of that which they purportedly stand for. The hypocritical discourse of democracy and rights is but the natural result of neoconservatism. As the Canadian academic, Shadia Drury, states,
“They [the neocons] really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they’re conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy.”