The Terrorism Lie And Why We're Buying It

I was shocked by the reaction of the audience when watching an episode of Question Time from a couple of weeks ago when Will Self was explaining how he didn't think that all the surveillance that we see increasing in our cities was necessary to keep us safe from ‘terrorism’. The place went silent into disbelief that someone could have such a view. Then when journalist Louise Cooper appealed to everyone’s irrational fears by talking about how she didn't want her “Child to be killed by terrorists” the whole place erupted with applause!

            Let’s get this straight. What do they even mean by ‘terrorism’? The definition in the Terrorism Act 2000 is:

Section 1. –

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation]^[2] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [, racial]^[3] or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against a person,

(b) involves serious damage to property,

(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

Well if you read that it sounds an awful lot like the kind of behavior that the British government have been engaging in for hundreds of years! But they don’t have the British Ministry of Terrorism. They don’t even use the word war. When the British government commit terrorist acts abroad they’re the Ministry of Defense. Defending who exactly? Me or you from that Iraqi civilian who just wants to come over here with a bomb strapped to him? It’s not just bullshit but dangerous bullshit and the British people are buying it. You should be more worried about getting run over by a car or dying in some bizarre gardening accident than you should be of being a victim of a terrorist act. The fact that the government shoves this irrational fear down our throats seems to be a form of terrorism to me!

            The other problem to consider is that the British government might label the IRA as “A dangerous terrorist group” but call the Free Syrian Army “Brave rebels”. I understand the differences in the circumstances but what it comes down to is perception. If someone can be perceived to be a threat when they aren't then that is very dangerous. It can lead to people falsely reporting someone to the security services or even attacking someone because of the paranoia of terrorism put out by the mainstream media. I was on a bus one day and an Asian man with a backpack got on and he sat down and was sweating and I could see people looking at each other, most likely thinking that they were going to be blown up. Then guess what happened? He got off at the stop outside the college! The poor guy was probably freaking out about an exam he hadn't studied for, not planning on blowing the number 6 sky high! And there’s the problem. What if some nutter on the bus thought “I’m gonna be a hero and take this guy out before he takes us out.” Then the fear of violence creates violence.

            The British government are so arrogant that they feel as if they can commit atrocities at home and abroad and that they can tell themselves and everyone else that it needed to be done in ‘the national interest’ and that people were breaking ‘international law’. Every time a politician is asked if Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes they always talk about “being careful saying things like that” as if it’s completely unthinkable that a British Prime Minister could possibly commit a war crime. Surely not. “That wasn't a crime, it was a mission to preserve freedom in the national interest while helping the poor oppressed people in the country.” This argument which falls down when you look at the sheer mess that is usually left behind for someone else to clean up (often British private contractors). Also, if there weren't radicalized people in the country before the British and Americans flexed their imperialist muscles you can bet your arse there will be after they leave the mess behind.

            So why swallow it? Why is there some weird consensus that there are terrorist’s cells all over Britain just waiting to pounce at any moment? Sadly in my view it’s all down to the British people just passively believing the lies propagated by the mainstream media and not looking deeper into things for themselves. You could ask why the government would want us to be caught up in this lie. I dunno, to divide and rule the population, to grab resources in the Middle East, to satisfy the financial needs of the military industrial complex, to have an excuse to set up a massive surveillance state, because a worried population is easier to manage. There’s a few answers. Benjamin Franklin summed it up best when he said “He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.” He was right.