London Terrorist Attack
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
2016 - he was right.
2017 Bridge- part of his job as Mayor is to keep the populace calm; ANY mayor in that situation would have said similar.
2017 Finsbury - totally right thing to say since Muslims were the focus of the attack.
If this were Star Wars the Emperor would be proud of your hate.
So if the po lice don't carry guns and citizens had already got the bastard held captive why did they need special cops to come in and shoot him. Not that it was a bad idea. Just wondering why they had to have a group of civilians hold him still so they could get a shot at him?
So extra officers should be provided when Muzzies are the focus of the attack but when it's everyone else who's the focus of the attack they have to suck it up and accept, wrongly (because he's wrong), that it's part and parcel of living in a big city.
Okay.
PRITI PATEL Diane Abbott called for the ‘abolition of MI5’ — Labour can’t handle our security and counter-terrorism
COMMENT
Priti Patel, Home Secretary
1 Dec 2019
The Sun On Sunday
WHEN you accept the job of Home Secretary, sadly you know there will be days like Friday.
If it wasn’t for our police and the extraordinary heroism of a few Londoners, it could have been an even darker day.
I don’t believe that Diane Abbott would sign off surveillance ops against terror suspects
The harsh reality is that there are more depraved individuals like Usman Khan out there who hate this country and its values.
Every day, I sign a huge pile of warrants that authorise the police, National Crime Agency and MI5 to mount surveillance ops against people suspected of plotting attacks.
Some of the things I read are chilling but this process helps lead to arrests and the foiling of terror plots. No fewer than 24 have been thwarted in the past two years.
I simply don’t believe that Diane Abbott, who will become Home Secretary if we don’t secure a Tory government on December 12, would sign off operations that make attacks like the one on London Bridge a rarity.
After all, she called for “the abolition of conspiratorial groups like MI5”. And we know Jeremy Corbyn disapproves of police using “shoot to kill” tactics against terrorists.
His Labour is not like any Labour Party that has been in government.
I might not agree with former Home Secretaries Jack Straw and David Blunkett, but I never doubted their commitment to national security.
I cannot say the same for the current crop who have spent their political lives criticising our police and security services while praising terror groups.
Staggeringly, because of a law introduced by Labour in 2008, Usman Khan was automatically released from prison without having to appear in front of the parole board.
Friday’s horrific events make it clear we need to go much further in keeping terrorists behind bars for longer.
We’re recruiting 20,000 more police officers and are on track to increase funding for counter terror policing by 30 per cent.
But all of this is at risk in 11 days. The choice facing the country on December 12 couldn’t be starker.
Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick, Priti Patel and Boris Johnson at London Bridge Credit: Reuters
Jeremy Corbyn telling the BBC in 2015 that he was 'not happy' with a shoot-to-kill policy Credit: BBC
Chiling footage shows London Bridge attacker Usman Khan telling the BBC in 2008 he 'ain't no terrorist' Credit: Universal News & Sport (Europe)
London Bridge terrorist Usman Khan, circled, was arrested in 2012 along with his Al Qaeda cell, pictured
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10459...nt-handle-our-security-and-counter-terrorism/
COMMENT
Priti Patel, Home Secretary
1 Dec 2019
The Sun On Sunday
WHEN you accept the job of Home Secretary, sadly you know there will be days like Friday.
If it wasn’t for our police and the extraordinary heroism of a few Londoners, it could have been an even darker day.
I don’t believe that Diane Abbott would sign off surveillance ops against terror suspects
The harsh reality is that there are more depraved individuals like Usman Khan out there who hate this country and its values.
Every day, I sign a huge pile of warrants that authorise the police, National Crime Agency and MI5 to mount surveillance ops against people suspected of plotting attacks.
Some of the things I read are chilling but this process helps lead to arrests and the foiling of terror plots. No fewer than 24 have been thwarted in the past two years.
I simply don’t believe that Diane Abbott, who will become Home Secretary if we don’t secure a Tory government on December 12, would sign off operations that make attacks like the one on London Bridge a rarity.
After all, she called for “the abolition of conspiratorial groups like MI5”. And we know Jeremy Corbyn disapproves of police using “shoot to kill” tactics against terrorists.
His Labour is not like any Labour Party that has been in government.
I might not agree with former Home Secretaries Jack Straw and David Blunkett, but I never doubted their commitment to national security.
I cannot say the same for the current crop who have spent their political lives criticising our police and security services while praising terror groups.
Staggeringly, because of a law introduced by Labour in 2008, Usman Khan was automatically released from prison without having to appear in front of the parole board.
Friday’s horrific events make it clear we need to go much further in keeping terrorists behind bars for longer.
We’re recruiting 20,000 more police officers and are on track to increase funding for counter terror policing by 30 per cent.
But all of this is at risk in 11 days. The choice facing the country on December 12 couldn’t be starker.
Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick, Priti Patel and Boris Johnson at London Bridge Credit: Reuters
Jeremy Corbyn telling the BBC in 2015 that he was 'not happy' with a shoot-to-kill policy Credit: BBC
Chiling footage shows London Bridge attacker Usman Khan telling the BBC in 2008 he 'ain't no terrorist' Credit: Universal News & Sport (Europe)
London Bridge terrorist Usman Khan, circled, was arrested in 2012 along with his Al Qaeda cell, pictured
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10459...nt-handle-our-security-and-counter-terrorism/
Didn't they ban knives in London? I thought I heard something about it. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?
No, that's not true. Most people use knives everyday, for example in cooking and eating.
London Bridge: Woman killed in attack named as Saskia Jones
The family of Saskia Jones said her death "will leave a huge void in our lives"
The woman killed in Friday's London Bridge attack has been named by police as Saskia Jones.
The 23-year-old Cambridge University graduate, from Stratford-upon-Avon, was fatally stabbed alongside another ex-student, Jack Merritt.
The boss of the venue where the attack began which killed the pair said "the building turned into a nightmare".
Toby Williamson, of Fishmongers' Hall, said staff who fought attacker Usman Khan believed he was wearing a bomb.
Two men took chairs, fire extinguishers and narwhal tusks, which were hanging on the wall, to fend off Khan, driving him out of the building.
Khan, 28, a convicted terrorist who was released from prison in December 2018, was later shot dead by police on London Bridge.
Ms Jones' family said their daughter, from Stratford-upon-Avon in Warwickshire, had a "great passion" for supporting victims of criminal justice.
"Saskia was a funny, kind, positive influence at the centre of many people's lives," the family statement read.
"She had a wonderful sense of mischievous fun and was generous to the point of always wanting to see the best in all people.
"She was intent on living life to the full and had a wonderful thirst for knowledge, enabling her to be the best she could be.
"This is an extremely painful time for the family. Saskia will leave a huge void in our lives and we would request that our privacy is fully respected."
Cambridge University's vice-chancellor said he was "devastated to learn that among the victims were staff and alumni".
Professor Stephen J Toope said the victims were taking part in an event "to mark five years of the university's Learning Together programme" - which focuses on prisoner rehabilitation.
He added: "What should have been a joyous opportunity to celebrate the achievements of this unique and socially transformative programme, hosted by our Institute of Criminology, was instead disrupted by an unspeakable criminal act.
"Among the three people injured, whose identities have not been publicly released, is a member of university staff.
"Our university condemns this abhorrent and senseless act of terror."
Vice-chancellor Professor Stephen J Toope said he only met Jack Merritt once but was "impressed by his charm".
Speaking to the BBC, Prof Toope said the fact Mr Merritt was killed by someone he was trying to help "is the greatest tragedy of all".
"I have profound sadness for the family," he added.
"This is an attack on our community and it was intended, in such, to produce a form of terror and sadness - and it has clearly done that."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50621581
Fishmongers' Hall, by London Bridge, is the headquarters of the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers, one of the 110 Livery Companies of the City of London
The family of Saskia Jones said her death "will leave a huge void in our lives"
The woman killed in Friday's London Bridge attack has been named by police as Saskia Jones.
The 23-year-old Cambridge University graduate, from Stratford-upon-Avon, was fatally stabbed alongside another ex-student, Jack Merritt.
The boss of the venue where the attack began which killed the pair said "the building turned into a nightmare".
Toby Williamson, of Fishmongers' Hall, said staff who fought attacker Usman Khan believed he was wearing a bomb.
Two men took chairs, fire extinguishers and narwhal tusks, which were hanging on the wall, to fend off Khan, driving him out of the building.
Khan, 28, a convicted terrorist who was released from prison in December 2018, was later shot dead by police on London Bridge.
Ms Jones' family said their daughter, from Stratford-upon-Avon in Warwickshire, had a "great passion" for supporting victims of criminal justice.
"Saskia was a funny, kind, positive influence at the centre of many people's lives," the family statement read.
"She had a wonderful sense of mischievous fun and was generous to the point of always wanting to see the best in all people.
"She was intent on living life to the full and had a wonderful thirst for knowledge, enabling her to be the best she could be.
"This is an extremely painful time for the family. Saskia will leave a huge void in our lives and we would request that our privacy is fully respected."
Cambridge University's vice-chancellor said he was "devastated to learn that among the victims were staff and alumni".
Professor Stephen J Toope said the victims were taking part in an event "to mark five years of the university's Learning Together programme" - which focuses on prisoner rehabilitation.
He added: "What should have been a joyous opportunity to celebrate the achievements of this unique and socially transformative programme, hosted by our Institute of Criminology, was instead disrupted by an unspeakable criminal act.
"Among the three people injured, whose identities have not been publicly released, is a member of university staff.
"Our university condemns this abhorrent and senseless act of terror."
Vice-chancellor Professor Stephen J Toope said he only met Jack Merritt once but was "impressed by his charm".
Speaking to the BBC, Prof Toope said the fact Mr Merritt was killed by someone he was trying to help "is the greatest tragedy of all".
"I have profound sadness for the family," he added.
"This is an attack on our community and it was intended, in such, to produce a form of terror and sadness - and it has clearly done that."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50621581
Fishmongers' Hall, by London Bridge, is the headquarters of the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers, one of the 110 Livery Companies of the City of London
Last edited:
Diavek banned screwdrivers because one of their sparkies managed to poke himself in the eye with one despite wearing safety glasses. Lasted about a day and a half because no tradesperson can work without a screwdriver for long. So yeah I can see the leaders of a place like london banning knives.
lol Ban hammers cuz they can fall and squash a toe or a head, pliers cuz they can pinch, sawscuz they cut, etc. too. Brilliant............... if you want a nanny state.
Robert at work was in a supermarket and asked a worker if the supermarket sells hammers. He was told that they don't, because the hammer could be used as a weapon.
If every shop took that logic it'd be impossible to buy a hammer anywhere.
That's not what I said.
Providing extra police was the right call.
Providing extra police anywhere would be the right call.
You're seriously stretching the line real thin between his comment about being in a big city and expecting terror attacks and implying only Muslims deserve extra police protection.
Cherry picking what the mayor has said in those three instances to try and make some sort of point, valid or not, is typical of you though.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...re-extinguisher-video-terrorism-a9227146.html
Apparently, one of the people who helped take the terrorist down was in prison with the guy.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/02/narwhal-tusk-london-bridge-attack/
And one of the 'heroes' was a convicted murderer who killed a disabled girl and the family had no clue he was out.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...guisher-used-to-tackle-london-bridge-attacker
And Narwhal tusk guy? An immigrant.
Apparently, one of the people who helped take the terrorist down was in prison with the guy.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/02/narwhal-tusk-london-bridge-attack/
And one of the 'heroes' was a convicted murderer who killed a disabled girl and the family had no clue he was out.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...guisher-used-to-tackle-london-bridge-attacker
And Narwhal tusk guy? An immigrant.
Khan is useless. He's an apologist for Islamism. Not too surprising, though, considering he has in the past shared platforms with Islamist groups.
As opposed to an apologist for...?
Look, I know you're terrified of Muslims, and I know you're a pure bigot through and through, but you've got to have more than just what you've posted about Khan to prove he's useless.
Stop making excuses for Islamist terror
Jeremy Corbyn’s London Bridge comments were stupid and shameful.
BRENDAN O'NEILL
EDITOR
2nd December 2019
Spiked
Jeremy Corbyn can’t help himself. He sees an Islamist terror attack and his first instinct is to politicise it, to give it some gravitas, to reimagine it as some kind of anti-imperialist act. And he’s done it again with the London Bridge atrocity.
Just 48 hours after Usman Khan carried out his grisly, ISIS-inspired stabbing attack, Corbyn was linking it with the ‘war on terror’. In a speech yesterday he said the assault was wrong and wicked etc, etc, but it is also partly our fault, apparently. It happened because of our interventions overseas. By invading Iraq and Libya we helped to nurture a culture of bitterness and hatred that inflamed terrorism in the West, he said. This is excuse-making for Islamist terror, plain and simple.
Of course Corbyn was careful to add caveats in his speech. He said he wasn’t aiming to ‘absolve’ terrorists of responsibility for what they do. But that is exactly what he’s doing. When he says, in the Observer’s summary, that the wars in Iraq and other Muslim countries have ‘radicalised’ young Muslims in the West, he is diminishing the responsibility of the Islamist terrorist himself and shifting the blame on to Western officials.
When he says, in the context of London Bridge and other recent Islamist attacks, that we are ‘living with the consequences’ of ‘Britain’s repeated military interventions’ overseas, and particularly of the ‘invasion and occupation of Iraq’, he is depicting ISIS-style terror in the West as a ‘consequence’ of decisions taken by the British Army and other military forces. It is, to use woke lingo Corbynistas will be familiar with, a species of victim-blaming.
Worse, Corbyn is using a terrorist, in this case the dead terrorist Usman Khan, as a kind of ventriloquist’s dummy to repeat his own criticisms of the Iraq War. We have no idea if Khan felt strongly about the Iraq War in particular. And that’s leaving aside the fact that it doesn’t matter one iota if he did feel strongly about the Iraq War. Still, Corbyn ventriloquises through Islamist barbarism, using this terrorist act as a kind of amplifier of his own political views. And in the process he does something unforgivable: he adds gravitas to these dreadful acts of religious hatred and intolerance.
This isn’t the first time Corbyn and others of his leftish persuasion have done this. They pinned the 7/7 bombings on the Iraq War. They mentioned the ‘war on terror’ in the aftermath of the spate of terror attacks in the UK in 2017. There is a serious political, historical and geographical illiteracy to these claims, to this idea that Islamist terrorism is a response, however warped, to Western militarism.
It is ahistorical: the worst terror assault – 9/11 – predated the most recent round of bloody wars in the Middle East. It overlooks the fact that countries whose governments played no significant role in the Iraq War, including Sweden and Germany, have experienced Islamist terrorism. And it is politically degraded. It speaks to the degradation of the once noble cause of anti-imperialism that Corbyn and his Stop the War Coalition must now desperately politicise the most misanthropic, hysterical, barbaric forms of violence in an effort to accentuate their belief that the war in Iraq was a really bad thing.
Try to imagine a politician doing something like this with far-right terrorism. Imagine if, after the neo-fascistic slaughter carried out by Anders Breivik in Norway in 2011, a politician had said: ‘Look, I’m not excusing what he did. But I did warn you that pursuing left-wing policies would make some people angry. So from now on, the government must stop pursuing left-wing policies.’ Or imagine if after the racist terrorism at two mosques in Christchurch a politician had said: ‘This violence is inexcusable. But I did warn you that letting Muslims into the country would make people angry. I told you so.’
There would have been uproar. In fact, there was: an Australian politician actually said something very similar to that in the wake of Christchurch and he was rightly condemned across the world. He was slammed for drawing out and giving credence to the Christchurch killer’s own warped political beliefs. But isn’t that what Corbyn does with Islamist terrorism? Doesn’t he, too, draw out and amplify what he considers to be the political point to these atrocities? And doesn’t he effectively grant the terrorists a veto over government policy when he effectively says that unless we stop interfering overseas, there will be more slaughter like this?
That is one of the most distasteful things about Corbyn and other degraded leftists’ echoing of what they presume to be the political message of Islamist atrocities – they give these religious hysterics a veto over policy. Many of us are angry about many things. I’m angry about Western interventionism, including the meddling in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Some people are angry about mass immigration. Others are angry about Tory cuts. But no one should have a violent veto over these issues. Government should not change its policy on immigration, austerity or war on the basis that some people will plant a bomb if it doesn’t. That is terroristic blackmail. And terroristic blackmail is a game that Corbyn, perhaps unwittingly, is playing.
The foolish reading of (twisted) anti-imperialism into Islamist attacks also shows the extent to which identity politics has hijacked the contemporary left. The degraded left’s explanation for Islamist atrocities springs from its belief that Muslims are a uniquely victimised community, both internationally and domestically, and therefore it makes sense that they should lash out in a violent way.
There is an ironically racist element here. The notion that Muslims cannot help themselves, that they are passively ‘radicalised’ by foreign developments and turned into furious creatures who must let off bombs, is motored by an orientalist view of the Muslim community as lacking in agency, as less capable than others of controlling their response to world events. A white Christian could be very angry indeed about the war in Iraq; I’m sure many of them were. But would the degraded left imply that it was understandable if a white Christian stabbed people to death ostensibly in protest against that war? Of course not. But they view Muslims not only as the West’s greatest victims, but, correspondingly, as its most hapless, impulsive community, too. These arguments reveal the paternalistic undertones to the pitying identitarian worldview.
The Iraq War was a disaster. The interventions in Libya and Syria were awful, too. These were immoral ventures lacking in geopolitical coherence. If you want to argue against them, argue against them. Don’t cynically use Islamist terrorism to make your point. This new terror is not driven by any kind of analysis or passion regarding Western militarism overseas – it is driven by a disturbingly intolerant and hateful nihilism that views the West and its inhabitants as evil. To witness such terror and chalk it up to anti-imperialism is stupid and shameful.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/12/02/stop-making-excuses-for-islamist-terror/
Jeremy Corbyn’s London Bridge comments were stupid and shameful.
BRENDAN O'NEILL
EDITOR
2nd December 2019
Spiked
Jeremy Corbyn can’t help himself. He sees an Islamist terror attack and his first instinct is to politicise it, to give it some gravitas, to reimagine it as some kind of anti-imperialist act. And he’s done it again with the London Bridge atrocity.
Just 48 hours after Usman Khan carried out his grisly, ISIS-inspired stabbing attack, Corbyn was linking it with the ‘war on terror’. In a speech yesterday he said the assault was wrong and wicked etc, etc, but it is also partly our fault, apparently. It happened because of our interventions overseas. By invading Iraq and Libya we helped to nurture a culture of bitterness and hatred that inflamed terrorism in the West, he said. This is excuse-making for Islamist terror, plain and simple.
Of course Corbyn was careful to add caveats in his speech. He said he wasn’t aiming to ‘absolve’ terrorists of responsibility for what they do. But that is exactly what he’s doing. When he says, in the Observer’s summary, that the wars in Iraq and other Muslim countries have ‘radicalised’ young Muslims in the West, he is diminishing the responsibility of the Islamist terrorist himself and shifting the blame on to Western officials.
When he says, in the context of London Bridge and other recent Islamist attacks, that we are ‘living with the consequences’ of ‘Britain’s repeated military interventions’ overseas, and particularly of the ‘invasion and occupation of Iraq’, he is depicting ISIS-style terror in the West as a ‘consequence’ of decisions taken by the British Army and other military forces. It is, to use woke lingo Corbynistas will be familiar with, a species of victim-blaming.
Worse, Corbyn is using a terrorist, in this case the dead terrorist Usman Khan, as a kind of ventriloquist’s dummy to repeat his own criticisms of the Iraq War. We have no idea if Khan felt strongly about the Iraq War in particular. And that’s leaving aside the fact that it doesn’t matter one iota if he did feel strongly about the Iraq War. Still, Corbyn ventriloquises through Islamist barbarism, using this terrorist act as a kind of amplifier of his own political views. And in the process he does something unforgivable: he adds gravitas to these dreadful acts of religious hatred and intolerance.
This isn’t the first time Corbyn and others of his leftish persuasion have done this. They pinned the 7/7 bombings on the Iraq War. They mentioned the ‘war on terror’ in the aftermath of the spate of terror attacks in the UK in 2017. There is a serious political, historical and geographical illiteracy to these claims, to this idea that Islamist terrorism is a response, however warped, to Western militarism.
It is ahistorical: the worst terror assault – 9/11 – predated the most recent round of bloody wars in the Middle East. It overlooks the fact that countries whose governments played no significant role in the Iraq War, including Sweden and Germany, have experienced Islamist terrorism. And it is politically degraded. It speaks to the degradation of the once noble cause of anti-imperialism that Corbyn and his Stop the War Coalition must now desperately politicise the most misanthropic, hysterical, barbaric forms of violence in an effort to accentuate their belief that the war in Iraq was a really bad thing.
Try to imagine a politician doing something like this with far-right terrorism. Imagine if, after the neo-fascistic slaughter carried out by Anders Breivik in Norway in 2011, a politician had said: ‘Look, I’m not excusing what he did. But I did warn you that pursuing left-wing policies would make some people angry. So from now on, the government must stop pursuing left-wing policies.’ Or imagine if after the racist terrorism at two mosques in Christchurch a politician had said: ‘This violence is inexcusable. But I did warn you that letting Muslims into the country would make people angry. I told you so.’
There would have been uproar. In fact, there was: an Australian politician actually said something very similar to that in the wake of Christchurch and he was rightly condemned across the world. He was slammed for drawing out and giving credence to the Christchurch killer’s own warped political beliefs. But isn’t that what Corbyn does with Islamist terrorism? Doesn’t he, too, draw out and amplify what he considers to be the political point to these atrocities? And doesn’t he effectively grant the terrorists a veto over government policy when he effectively says that unless we stop interfering overseas, there will be more slaughter like this?
That is one of the most distasteful things about Corbyn and other degraded leftists’ echoing of what they presume to be the political message of Islamist atrocities – they give these religious hysterics a veto over policy. Many of us are angry about many things. I’m angry about Western interventionism, including the meddling in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Some people are angry about mass immigration. Others are angry about Tory cuts. But no one should have a violent veto over these issues. Government should not change its policy on immigration, austerity or war on the basis that some people will plant a bomb if it doesn’t. That is terroristic blackmail. And terroristic blackmail is a game that Corbyn, perhaps unwittingly, is playing.
The foolish reading of (twisted) anti-imperialism into Islamist attacks also shows the extent to which identity politics has hijacked the contemporary left. The degraded left’s explanation for Islamist atrocities springs from its belief that Muslims are a uniquely victimised community, both internationally and domestically, and therefore it makes sense that they should lash out in a violent way.
There is an ironically racist element here. The notion that Muslims cannot help themselves, that they are passively ‘radicalised’ by foreign developments and turned into furious creatures who must let off bombs, is motored by an orientalist view of the Muslim community as lacking in agency, as less capable than others of controlling their response to world events. A white Christian could be very angry indeed about the war in Iraq; I’m sure many of them were. But would the degraded left imply that it was understandable if a white Christian stabbed people to death ostensibly in protest against that war? Of course not. But they view Muslims not only as the West’s greatest victims, but, correspondingly, as its most hapless, impulsive community, too. These arguments reveal the paternalistic undertones to the pitying identitarian worldview.
The Iraq War was a disaster. The interventions in Libya and Syria were awful, too. These were immoral ventures lacking in geopolitical coherence. If you want to argue against them, argue against them. Don’t cynically use Islamist terrorism to make your point. This new terror is not driven by any kind of analysis or passion regarding Western militarism overseas – it is driven by a disturbingly intolerant and hateful nihilism that views the West and its inhabitants as evil. To witness such terror and chalk it up to anti-imperialism is stupid and shameful.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/12/02/stop-making-excuses-for-islamist-terror/
Come now Blackleaf , just sing the song , follow along now .Stop making excuses for Islamist terror
Jeremy Corbyn’s London Bridge comments were stupid and shameful.
BRENDAN O'NEILL
EDITOR
2nd December 2019
Spiked
Jeremy Corbyn can’t help himself. He sees an Islamist terror attack and his first instinct is to politicise it, to give it some gravitas, to reimagine it as some kind of anti-imperialist act. And he’s done it again with the London Bridge atrocity.
Just 48 hours after Usman Khan carried out his grisly, ISIS-inspired stabbing attack, Corbyn was linking it with the ‘war on terror’. In a speech yesterday he said the assault was wrong and wicked etc, etc, but it is also partly our fault, apparently. It happened because of our interventions overseas. By invading Iraq and Libya we helped to nurture a culture of bitterness and hatred that inflamed terrorism in the West, he said. This is excuse-making for Islamist terror, plain and simple.
Of course Corbyn was careful to add caveats in his speech. He said he wasn’t aiming to ‘absolve’ terrorists of responsibility for what they do. But that is exactly what he’s doing. When he says, in the Observer’s summary, that the wars in Iraq and other Muslim countries have ‘radicalised’ young Muslims in the West, he is diminishing the responsibility of the Islamist terrorist himself and shifting the blame on to Western officials.
When he says, in the context of London Bridge and other recent Islamist attacks, that we are ‘living with the consequences’ of ‘Britain’s repeated military interventions’ overseas, and particularly of the ‘invasion and occupation of Iraq’, he is depicting ISIS-style terror in the West as a ‘consequence’ of decisions taken by the British Army and other military forces. It is, to use woke lingo Corbynistas will be familiar with, a species of victim-blaming.
Worse, Corbyn is using a terrorist, in this case the dead terrorist Usman Khan, as a kind of ventriloquist’s dummy to repeat his own criticisms of the Iraq War. We have no idea if Khan felt strongly about the Iraq War in particular. And that’s leaving aside the fact that it doesn’t matter one iota if he did feel strongly about the Iraq War. Still, Corbyn ventriloquises through Islamist barbarism, using this terrorist act as a kind of amplifier of his own political views. And in the process he does something unforgivable: he adds gravitas to these dreadful acts of religious hatred and intolerance.
This isn’t the first time Corbyn and others of his leftish persuasion have done this. They pinned the 7/7 bombings on the Iraq War. They mentioned the ‘war on terror’ in the aftermath of the spate of terror attacks in the UK in 2017. There is a serious political, historical and geographical illiteracy to these claims, to this idea that Islamist terrorism is a response, however warped, to Western militarism.
It is ahistorical: the worst terror assault – 9/11 – predated the most recent round of bloody wars in the Middle East. It overlooks the fact that countries whose governments played no significant role in the Iraq War, including Sweden and Germany, have experienced Islamist terrorism. And it is politically degraded. It speaks to the degradation of the once noble cause of anti-imperialism that Corbyn and his Stop the War Coalition must now desperately politicise the most misanthropic, hysterical, barbaric forms of violence in an effort to accentuate their belief that the war in Iraq was a really bad thing.
Try to imagine a politician doing something like this with far-right terrorism. Imagine if, after the neo-fascistic slaughter carried out by Anders Breivik in Norway in 2011, a politician had said: ‘Look, I’m not excusing what he did. But I did warn you that pursuing left-wing policies would make some people angry. So from now on, the government must stop pursuing left-wing policies.’ Or imagine if after the racist terrorism at two mosques in Christchurch a politician had said: ‘This violence is inexcusable. But I did warn you that letting Muslims into the country would make people angry. I told you so.’
There would have been uproar. In fact, there was: an Australian politician actually said something very similar to that in the wake of Christchurch and he was rightly condemned across the world. He was slammed for drawing out and giving credence to the Christchurch killer’s own warped political beliefs. But isn’t that what Corbyn does with Islamist terrorism? Doesn’t he, too, draw out and amplify what he considers to be the political point to these atrocities? And doesn’t he effectively grant the terrorists a veto over government policy when he effectively says that unless we stop interfering overseas, there will be more slaughter like this?
That is one of the most distasteful things about Corbyn and other degraded leftists’ echoing of what they presume to be the political message of Islamist atrocities – they give these religious hysterics a veto over policy. Many of us are angry about many things. I’m angry about Western interventionism, including the meddling in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Some people are angry about mass immigration. Others are angry about Tory cuts. But no one should have a violent veto over these issues. Government should not change its policy on immigration, austerity or war on the basis that some people will plant a bomb if it doesn’t. That is terroristic blackmail. And terroristic blackmail is a game that Corbyn, perhaps unwittingly, is playing.
The foolish reading of (twisted) anti-imperialism into Islamist attacks also shows the extent to which identity politics has hijacked the contemporary left. The degraded left’s explanation for Islamist atrocities springs from its belief that Muslims are a uniquely victimised community, both internationally and domestically, and therefore it makes sense that they should lash out in a violent way.
There is an ironically racist element here. The notion that Muslims cannot help themselves, that they are passively ‘radicalised’ by foreign developments and turned into furious creatures who must let off bombs, is motored by an orientalist view of the Muslim community as lacking in agency, as less capable than others of controlling their response to world events. A white Christian could be very angry indeed about the war in Iraq; I’m sure many of them were. But would the degraded left imply that it was understandable if a white Christian stabbed people to death ostensibly in protest against that war? Of course not. But they view Muslims not only as the West’s greatest victims, but, correspondingly, as its most hapless, impulsive community, too. These arguments reveal the paternalistic undertones to the pitying identitarian worldview.
The Iraq War was a disaster. The interventions in Libya and Syria were awful, too. These were immoral ventures lacking in geopolitical coherence. If you want to argue against them, argue against them. Don’t cynically use Islamist terrorism to make your point. This new terror is not driven by any kind of analysis or passion regarding Western militarism overseas – it is driven by a disturbingly intolerant and hateful nihilism that views the West and its inhabitants as evil. To witness such terror and chalk it up to anti-imperialism is stupid and shameful.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/12/02/stop-making-excuses-for-islamist-terror/
Everyone is beautiful in their own wayayayay