“Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go ten thousand miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights? ~Muhammad Ali on his opposition to the 1967 US military induction for Vietnam.
“If you look close enough at these medals, you can see the reflections of dead Iraqis. You can see the embers of Libya. And you can see the faces of the men and women of the British armed forces who didn’t return and also those who did with lost limbs and shattered souls. I no longer require these medals.” ~ Daniel Denham, Former RAF, 2015
There has been a concerted effort to militarise Muslims. This has ranged from cultivating a militarist, state-worshipping mind-set in schools where the pupils are predominantly Muslim, to parading the Army in mosques, and now, using religion to encourage Muslims to join the army.
Times-assigned “leading Islamic scholars and imams” attended a conference with the military at Sandhurst to encourage Muslims to join the British Armed Forces. The article quotes Qari Asim, the Imam at Makkah Mosque in Leeds, as reportedly saying,
“The armed forces are seen as a noble profession and it follows there are no inherent tensions.”
The report further adds that he said scholars were agreed that Islam does not prohibit Muslims from serving in the British Army.
To better understand the validity of Qari Asim’s reported blanket proclamation, there is a need to understand the idea of violence from the perspective of a neocon state and its political domain.
The ardent anti-Muslim neoconservative Michael Gove, author of the draconian anti-Muslim neocon Bible Celsius 7/7 has complained that those who wish to remain in the EU are,
“wanting us to believe that Britain is broken and beaten… It treats people like mere children, capable of being frightened into obedience by conjuring up new bogeymen every night,”
In other words, people are using neoconservative, Machiavellian tactics. His tactics, in other words. Ironically, in the same breath it is Gove who argues Britain is beaten and broken by stating that a vote to leave would be a “galvanising, liberating, empowering moment of patriotic renewal” which would result in “taking back control” – this presumes that Britain is currently unliberated and not empowered.
“There is a great deal of con in neocon ideology”
I have discussed and expounded the retroviral neoconservative thinking penetrating the heart of Whitehall in several blogs now. I have also discussed elsewhere the practical interplay between Zionists, neocons, corporations and the government. The immoral, deep-rooted neoconservative impact on fiscal policies from a philosophic perspective is a discussion which has thus far eluded me.
With David Cameron continually assuring the good people of Britain that “we” need to stick to an economic plan that “works”, despite the many failures of the current strategy, not to mention scathing criticism of the “trickledown economics” from a leading think-tank, the Conservative party, beneath the shallow, exoteric rhetoric continues to unveil its higher priority: corporations. Peeling back recent happenings reveals the distinct duplicitous traits of neoconservatism, thus allowing me to touch upon the “con” in neocon tactics in the economic context.
Influencing Voting Through Deception
The political dirt of buying influence is well known: some peerages are granted to individuals who in turn scratch the back of the parties when required. Ultimately, party donors and said peers can exert influence on legislation which may ultimately benefit them, or rather, their coffers. The cash for honours scandal of 2006/7 comes to mind.
With elections nigh, Cameron’s party has been using its peerage and donor connections to the full in what seems like a corrupt attempt to “influence” voters through deception.
The past couple of weeks have been quite eventful in the context of the “reformist” deformist attack on Islam. There is no longer a need for a smokescreen of social issues behind which to mount the attack. It seems to be the case that the events like the actions of ISIS have provided a sufficient pretext to renew the call to deform Islam. This, despite the fact that scholars from different theological backgrounds have continually expressed their revulsion at ISIS activities, not as a matter of political expedience but through Islamic textual deductions.
The Conveyor Belt to Disbelief
Neoconservatism has been at the forefront of pushing a reformation, or as I call it, a deformation in Islam, particularly after the onset of the Iraq War. Leading neocon and architect of the disastrous US foreign policy, Paul Wolfowitz stated on the eve of the Iraq war,
“We need an Islamic reformation and I think there is a real hope for one”.
The fountains of traditional Islamic learning also came in for neocon smear. In a speech at Georgetown University on the 30th of October 2003, Wolfowitz described madaaris (Islamic schools) as “schools that teach hatred, schools that teach terrorism” while providing free “theologically extremist teaching to ‘millions’” of Muslim children.
I have pretty much stopped watching BBC programmes, especially given the psychotic Zionist, pro-Conservative (or rather, neoconservative) lean the Beeb elicits. Seeing the bubbling social network activity around the recent Big Questions programme, I decided to break with my intuition and watch it. The result? It reminded me of Frantz Fanon’s depiction of the colonialist French who would entertain themselves by mocking the “backward” – it was a show of individuals so inebriated by their own sense of superiority that they were blind to their own hypocrisy.
And indeed as I tried to play “word association” to psychologically disassociate from the mental trauma inflicted by the circus act, I kept cycling through words starting with “hypocrisy”, “deception”, “dishonesty” round back to “hypocrisy” again.
Right from the start “Islamo-fascism” was used to describe ISIS by Nicky Campbell. This term has been used by the far-right/liberal interventionists and extreme neocons like Norman Podhoretz who wants a World War IV (WWIII is the War of Terror according to him) to describe Islam itself. A Freudian slip indicating a very neoconservative bias, perhaps? It would certainly explain his glee witnessing the reactions of neocon Emily Dyer. More on her later.
“One of the most atrocious violations against human dignity is the act of torture, the result of which destroy the dignity and impairs the capability of victims to continue their lives and their activities.”
The spin which has been pumped regarding the true nature of US activities is based on a precedent of architecting lies and selling it to Western audiences by their “statesmen”. As I will allude to later in greater depth, it is the neoconservative thinking which has forged a path of deception which masks the truth from the public purely on the basis that the public cannot handle the truth (because they are incapable of doing so) and therefore they need to be sold “noble lies” to pursue objectives.
In 2007 Bush declared, “our government doesn’t do torture”, despite the fact that according to the Torture Report Bush had acknowledged the existence of the program on the 6th of September 2006. In other words, he lied. Leading up to the release of the report, Bush focussed on the “heroes” who were doing their “duty” thus repackaging his lies in the form of distorted and delusional patriotism. This “duty” has now had ramifications in Iraq and Syria.
Whilst our neocon statesmen were happily using the ISIS beheading videos as fodder to pursue military aggression abroad and enacting legislation banning dissent and policing thought at home, a small but significant aspect of the videos was conveniently ignored: the victims were garbed in Guantanamo Bay jumpsuits. Indeed a number ISIS operatives have been tortured by Western agencies at one point in time or another. The rules of war were “changed” escalating brutality. As highlighted by activist Asim Qureshi,
“The Islamic State exists, and it has not only secondary experience, but lived experience of the abuses carried out in the name of the War on Terror. The danger of that lived experience is not in just its disenfranchisement of those affected, it is that it will be given further oxygen to the idea the other new forms of abuse will somehow bring this conflict to an end.”
Neocon outlets like FOX began “shaping” the perception of the public which started buying into the utility of torture despite its ubiquitous status as completely unjustifiable and unworkable. Torture simply does not work. And this has been reinforced by the Torture Report which found such methods did not yield actionable intelligence which foiled plots. Instead it led the CIA to dead ends, and the US government to bad decisions. As Moazzam Begg noted, the torture of Ibn al Sheikh Al Libi resulted in a false testimony which linked Saddam to Al-Qaeda, forming the primary basis for the neocons in Washington and Britain to architect a war which has led to the appalling situation in Iraq and Syria.