Mohammed Emwazi: Are Security Service Actions threatening the Security of Britain?

ss

For some reason there is a perception in Britain and indeed, in the Western world that security services are a squeaky clean in their approach to protecting the citizens of this country. This, despite the fact that they have been exposed in violating the very principles, which are lauded for keeping the “civilised world”, civilised.  In the damning judgment of Binyam Mohamed in 2010, it was found that the Mi5 did not respect human rights, nor renounced torture, misled MPs and operated in a “culture of suppression” in dealing with the court.

As the papers did what they do best – control+c and control+v reports, it seemed as though the corporate media suddenly had an epiphany: we are copying some real journalism here, this needs to be spun asap!

Reading the recent reports demonstrates evidence of media spin once again, where the (government) spin-doctors are in full-swing to skew the story of “Jihadi John”, or Mohammed Emwazi. The focus of the media rapidly shifted to the conveniently government-narrative-compliant “ideology” as a causal factor. The Daily Fail began its campaign against CAGE and Asim Qureshi who were cited in the original Washington Post article, after perhaps realising the implications of the initial report.  CAGE became smeared across the papers for suggesting that a person as violent as Mohammed Emwazi could actually have been a normal human being. Media outlets usually pointing the finger at mental disorders in “white terrorism”, began pointing the finger at CAGE for attempting to “contextualise” the man’s actions, forgetting that the government has been imposing its own academically-wanting contextualisation of belligerent actions on the Muslims community for decades. The academically-wanting conveyor-belt theory to terrorism has been the go-to theory for the government, counter-extremism “experts” from the Quilliam Foundation and the bigoted Henry Jackson Society.

Continue reading

Advertisements

John Ware and Sara Khan – Was the Documentary a Propaganda Piece for the Home Office?

SpinoramaJohnWare

John Ware’s content suggests he is an establishment journalist who makes the facts fit the government agenda.  However, in order to grasp an idea of his political outlook one needs to examine some of his work.

In an article for the Jewish Chronicle (JC), Ware praises Douglas Murray as a “titan of the commentariat”, and defends his trivialisation of Islamophobia, who calls it a “crock” to the sharp criticism of another JC writer, David Aaronovitch.  Douglas Murray needs no introduction. An ardent neocon, he has called Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, a “very bad man”, and Islam along with the Qur’an, “bad”. He translates this hate into calls for special negative treatment of Muslims, by making conditions for them in Europe “harder across the board”.  According to Murray, even “universal” human rights are tiered, with the rights of “West’s people [overriding] those of the Islamist’s in their midst.”

His Henry Jackson Society is funded by a transnational Islamophobia-pumping industry.  In the discussion between Aaronovitch and Murray, Ware sides with Murray and echoes him in “rationalising” away his exceptional treatment of Muslims, justifying his position by stating that anti-Semitism is “entirely irrational” whilst Islamophobia is “reactive”.  He then attempts to give credence to his position by highlighting that Jewish integration has been a “success story”. The success of “Jewish integration” has been addressed in previous articles, and it is not entirely as it is made out to be.  Muslims are demarcated, however, because they,

“cite foreign policy as the reason for terrorism here, which suggests they identify more closely with other Muslims in far-off lands than with fellow Britons.”

Continue reading