Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism
'Terrorists' are the new bogey men. 'Terrorists' are what make boys and girls hide under their beds at night and shiver under the duvet. 'Terrorists' can be used to excuse any kind of behaviour, any atrocity, any depriving of liberty - terrorism, terrorism, terrorism. We can't let the terrorists win, therefore we must make everyone lose. And it's not something that's confined to the West either - from Algeria to Iraq to Colombia, when a state wants to be brutal, it explains its actions by saying it's defending itself against 'terrorism'. Are they right? Is there a global terrorist epidemic? Are terrorists waiting to take us over and kill us in our beds? Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism.
The Express, of course, doesn't even bother asking the questions. It knows that Irish and Islamist terrorists would have no problem joining forces, despite their widely differing and partly competing ideologies. Why should that matter? Presumably they all sit round a big table at Terrorism HQ like the lair of a Bond villain and discuss how they're going to create chaos and destruction in the world.
HAS AL QAEDA JOINED REAL IRA PLOT?
No, I imagine not. I imagine (a) there isn't a Real IRA plot and (b) that Al-Qaeda aren't really interested in joining in, if at all possible. But maybe that's a tremendously naive view of me...?
NORTHERN Ireland has been put on terrorist alert for the Queen’s visit later this month.
Well duh, I imagine it has been. You'd be a bit barmy not to. I understand there are certain sections of the Northern Irish population who aren't exactly enamoured of Her Majesty.
Police have stepped up security not only because of the threat from dissident republicans but amid concern over an increase in suspected Al Qaeda activity in Ireland.
A couple of swarthy-looking types chatting on mobile phones...? Or just a load of utter bollocks made up to create a climate of fear and suspicion?
It is feared that the two groups may be sharing expertise.
Oh that's nice for them. I can imagine they've got loads in common - still, that didn't stop the links between the IRA and Libya in the 1980s that were all over the press, despite a surprising lack of any evidence.
It also coincides with an announcement by Interpol last week that it is hunting two Al Qaeda terrorists believed to be on the run in Ireland.
That cranks it up a bit. But why are they in Ireland?
Ibrahim Bouisir, 47, has both Irish and Libyan passports and is wanted for terrorism offences. According to Interpol he has close links with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Oh, so an Irish national is in Ireland. Crikey, how did he get in the country then? Using his own passport? No wonder he cleverly fooled security.
MI5 set up a team to monitor suspected Al Qaeda activists and supporters in Ireland after last June’s Glasgow airport attack by Islamist terrorist Kafeel Ahmed, who had been working in Belfast. The Queen’s University-educated fanatic, who died of burns after driving a flaming Jeep into the terminal building, was said to have been a leading light in Al Qaeda in Ireland.
Why is this all coming out now? What purpose does it serve? If these men were really being hunted, wouldn't it be better to track them under cover to avoid them scarpering? Or is this intended to make them scarper? Why now? It would be real egg on face time if Interpol/MI5 were unable to track down these men and they did end up committing an atrocity in Ireland. So why make it public? I fear it isn't due to the world-class investigative skills of the Express, more down to someone wanting this story to come out. But why?
The eight-strong MI5 unit is understood to be spying on Islamists, some with links to Ahmed, based in Belfast, Lisburn and mid-Ulster. Three suspected Islamist terrorists were arrested in County Kerry last Saturday after Irish police swooped on a flat in Tralee and found devices they believed could be used to make bombs. The three Afghan men were later released without charge.
Run that past me again.
Three suspected Islamist terrorists were arrested in County Kerry last Saturday after Irish police swooped on a flat in Tralee and found devices they believed could be used to make bombs. The three Afghan men were later released without charge.
Yes, I thought that's what you said. So... men found, suspected terrorists, with devices that could be used to make bombs... but the Garda merrily sent them on their way with a friendly wave? Something's not right there, is it?
The genius commenters weigh in with some perceptive views:
The Queen must be top of the list for the Taliban. Their spokesman made that threat, the Queen and Prince Harry, and anyhone else in the Royal Family, their friends, everyone.
Yes but the Taliban are kind of hamstrung by being in Afghanistan, you see.
When Tony Blair or his Family are affected by Terrorism , then , and only then will i begin to believe that the Taliban are active on British soil.
But... the Taliban aren't Al-Qaeda. No-one really thinks that. Do they?
It appears that it is not only the kids identities which needs to be hidden by smiley faces.
Yes, good point. (What the fuck?)
As the now defunct IRA had extensive support from many terrrorist organisation and actually did a lot of training with them and also teaching them ..Why is thios such a surprise surely our socalled Intelligence Depts have been well aware of all these contacts and it doesnt take anyone with any brains to come to the realisation that the Reall IIRA would also use these connections to theri advantage ..I think the Security Services want to get their act together and start doing what they are paid for because it is conclusion many of the UK Public have come to long ago ....
Let's file that away under 'miscellaneous'.
But it's not just in the west that 'terrorism' can be invoked to mask other actions. China today announced it had scuppered a couple of 'terrorist' plots, and killed some 'terrorists'. And the evidence for this is...? Well, er, you've got to trust us on this one, lads.
Two people were reported to have been killed and 15 arrested in a raid on 27 January in Urumqi, Xinjiang province.
And tortured? We don't know but I imagine life isn't magical for them right now.
Officials now say their aim was to attack the August Olympics.
It's been two months since they were arrested. That's a hell of a lot of misery that the survivors have been through. I imagine they'd confess to anything.
The alleged plot was disclosed as officials also revealed that a plane crew prevented an apparent attempt to crash a jet on an internal flight.
The incident occurred on Friday.
Evidence for this is...? Oh, none. Well, I guess we'll just have to take your word on that as well then. But yes, terrorism. Terrorism! And nothing to do with government repression. We can't spoil Mr Bush's visit to the Olympics. Who knows, maybe he'll learn a thing or two about extracting confessions?
So that’s all right then
Is there anyone in the world - seriously, anyone - who believes that after six years of illegal detention and torture, the six Guanatanamates are going to get a fair trial?
Let's assume you think it's the right thing to do to bang up brown people for years without any evidence, force them to confess through torture in the interests of 'national security' and the 'war on terror' and deny them their basic human rights. Even then, do you really, deep down in your heart of hearts, think that a military tribunal with the power of the death penalty - risking humiliation on the world stage if the men are found not guilty and go free - is going to represent a fairer trial than a jury of 12 citizens in the United States?
Anyone? No...?
Oh sorry. One person. And that one person is allowed to dominate the BBC's coverage of the story.
US Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has promised a fair trial for Guantanamo prisoners accused of organising the 9/11 attacks in 2001.
Senior figure = authority = journalistic trust = 'promise'. Not 'says', which is the neutral verb given to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and a BBC correspondent in the same story. Not for them the first paragraph and the headline. No, because Michael Chertoff 'promises'.
So that's all right then.
Mr Chertoff told the BBC that there would be "full due-process and defence lawyers and all of the fundamental rights that would bring to justice those were responsible for one of the worst war-crimes in world history".
Really? Have you checked the facts? 'Sorry, deadline's in ten seconds - got to file the story first! He might be completely bullshitting, but it's not my job to find out, I'm only a journalist! But anyway, I won't question what he says about 9-11 being one of the worst war crimes in world history, because I'm sure it is, isn't it?'
Paragraph 26, and we finally get to hear what representatives of the accused say:
Responding to the new charges, a representative of Mohammed al-Qahtani said they would create "show trials".
See, that's writing a balanced story at the sopping-wet 'liberal-left BBC'. Put the political US source first, give them primacy in the story, imply that his words are more important and more honest than anyone else's, don't question anything and shove in a tiny bit of what the man who's been tortured and is going to be executed has to say about his impending doom down the bottom.
There, job done.
Bhutto murder and ‘terrorism’
What I found interesting about the response to Benazir Bhutto's killing yesterday was how quickly it became linked with terrorism. And now, just 24 hours later, we already have al-Qaeda conveniently in the frame.
Barack Obama:
"We join with [Pakistan] in mourning her loss, and stand with them in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world."
Rudi Giuliani:
"[Bhutto's] death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere — whether in New York, London, Tel Aviv or Rawalpindi — is an enemy of freedom," he said. "We must redouble our efforts to win the terrorists' war on us."
"She risked everything in her attempt to win democracy in Pakistan and she has been assassinated by cowards afraid of democracy," Brown said."This atrocity strengthens our resolve that terrorists will not win there, here or anywhere in the world."
“This is an appalling act of terrorism. Today Pakistan has lost one of its bravest daughters. Those responsible have not only murdered a courageous leader but have put at risk hopes for the country’s return to democracy.”
Consensus among politicians of the main stripes in our converged democracies of the US and the UK: it was terrorists. Terrorists are bad. We will fight them. Vote for me and I'll make things better.
Duh, that's a no-brainer, Vowl, you may be thinking: it was a suicide bomber. Suicide bombers = terrorists, and terrorists = al-Qaeda in the Muslim world, so case closed. Of course it was them!
Well, possibly. And most likely, probably. Yet at such an early stage, nothing can really be ruled out by anyone - especially not a journalist keeping an open mind. What a shame, then, that there aren't any of them to go around.
Pakistan says it's al-Qaeda, so it's al-Qaeda. According to 'intelligence'. (Indeed, according to 'Pakistan' says the BBC - an entire nation represented by its military leaders, who may or may not have a vested interest in putting the blame onto the bogeyman.) Can we see the intelligence? No. What is the intelligence? Not telling you. But it is al-Qaeda. Not anyone to do with Musharraf, let's make that clear. Oh, okay then. We'd better just report what you said without questioning it in the slightest.
The last par is tantalising though. A little tidbit that it really might have been worth expanding on:
After a previous attempt on her life in October, Ms Bhutto accused rogue elements of the Pakistani intelligence services of involvement.
Oh, not al-Qaeda then? So Bhutto herself thought it was Pakistani intelligence? And now we're reporting what, er, Pakistani intelligence are telling us word for word, not questioning it at all? And saying that their view is 'Pakistan says'. Isn't there something a little wrong with that?
Apparently not.
This story is still developing. I'm not saying it wasn't al-Qaeda, maybe it was. I know very little about politics in that country. But I know about as much about the assassins as any journalist covering the story does - nothing. The difference is, I haven't made my mind up yet, and I don't think it's right to repeat unquestioningly everything that comes out of the Pakistan government, particularly as we can't rule out their involvement in this.
And when we have our western politicians cranking up the volume about 'terrorism' and 'al-Qaeda' on the back of this atrocity, I start to wonder. I don't think in terms of conspiracy theories, but in terms of expediency. Bhutto's death is a convenient peg to hang a lot of things on, and to attempt to justify atrocities against the Middle East. It is in a lot of people's interests to place blame for this death onto al-Qaeda, the bogeyman. They might just be right. But what if they're not? What then?
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on Peter Hitchens depresses me. But I won’t kill him.
- Emily on Update
- Angela Webb on This isn’t a flounce
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.