In the wake of the massacre at the Manchester arena in May this year, politicians, public servants and the media rightly warned against blaming the entire Muslim community in Britain and the world. A few days after the atrocity I had to defriend someone on Facebook, a long term contact who writes books on nature, paganism and ritual magic, a sweet old lady of seventy something. What did she do to offend me so much?
As the great divide between the so called left and right of politics (though these terms are now used in ways that bear no relation to their original meaning) she had decided to take the side of the hand wringing, breast beating, politically correct, authoritarian left. always after a terrorist even she would call on people to show compassion, not for the victims or their families but for Muslims. "We must not hate Muslims, or react with anger." she would whine. To me it was just hypocritical virtue signalling because while the man in the pub might vent his spleen by by saying, "It's time we kicked them out of our country," he is usually smart enough to know that its is a small minority of religious extremists who are causing trouble.
My blogged response to the Manchester Arena bombing was that we should get angry, not at Muslims in general (that would be stupid,) nor at the extremists (that would be futile), but at the politicians, public servants and law enforcement officers who time and again have failed to act against suspected (and sometimes known,) terrorists and hate preachers and at the media luvvies who lecture us on tolerance from their ivory towers.
Certainly one of the aims of those who perpetrate atrocities such as Manchester, where 22 people were killed and over 100 injured, is to provoke conflict between Muslims and their host communities in Europe or America, and thus make Muslim immigrants feel alienated and marginalised in the hope that a portion of them will then become open to radicalisation and associate themselves with Isis and al-Qaeda affiliated activists.
The approach of not blaming Muslims in general but targeting “radicalisation” or simply “evil” is presented by the establishment as sensible and moderate, but that's bollocks. In practice, becoming apologists for extremism can only make the motives of the killers in Manchester or the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015, appear less clearly identified than it really is. Generalisations have the unfortunate effect of diluting the blame heaped on the extremist variant of Islam which is responsible for promulgating the beliefs which inspired people like suicide bomber Salman Abedi and the Bataclan attackers.
Wahhabism, the sect supported by the Saudi Arabian royal family, and its close cousin Salafism are the puritanical, fanatical and regressive type of Islam embraced by groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, which are dominant in Saudi Arabia, whose ideology is close to that of al-Qaeda and ISIS. This is an exclusive exclusive and intolerant interpretation of The Koran, emphasising those verses which seem to call for the extermination of all who disagree with it such as Christians, Jews, secular liberals, Hindus, Buddhists, members of other Muslim communities such as the Shia or women who reject their chattel-like status.
What has been termed Salafi jihadism, the core beliefs of Isis and al-Qaeda, developed out of Wahhabism, and has carried out its prejudices to what it sees as a logical and violent conclusion. Shia and Yazidis (in Iraq, Syia and Kurdistan) were not just heretics in the eyes of this movement, which was a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, but sub-humans who should be massacred or enslaved.
Any woman who transgressed against repressive social mores should be savagely punished. Faith should be demonstrated by a public death of the believer, slaughtering the unbelievers, be they the 86 Shia children being evacuated by bus from their homes in Syria on 15 April or the butchery of young fans at a pop concert in Manchester on Monday night.
The real causes of “radicalisation” and its centres in the religious colleges of Saudi Arabia, have long been known, but the government, the media and others seldom if ever refer to it because they do not want to offend the Saudis or be accused of anti-Islamic bias. It is much easier to say, piously but quite inaccurately, that Isis and al-Qaeda and their murderous foot soldiers “have nothing to do with Islam”. This has been the track record of US and UK governments since 9/11. They will blame anything or anyone except Saudi Arabia when seeking the causes of terrorism just as the US government has consistently refused to acknowledge the role of Saudi Arabia in the planning of 9/11, the terror attack on the World Trade Centre in New York.
President Trump has been ridiculed in the US media for blaming Iran and, in effect, the Shia community for the wave of terrorism that has engulfed the region when it ultimately emanates from one small but immensely influential fundamentalist Sunni sects. Thanks to the growth over the last 50 years of Sunni extremist influence, one of the things that has put the world at even greater risk of global conflict than at the height of the cold war is the way in which Wahhabism, once an isolated splinter group, has become an increasingly dominant influence over mainstream Sunni Islam, thanks to Saudi financial support.
A further sign of the Salafi-jihadi impact is the choice of targets: the attacks on the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015, a gay night club in Florida in 2016 and the Manchester Arena outrage at the end of a concert by Areana Grande, a young American singer who favours rather scanty stage outfits, have one thing in common. They were all frequented by young people enjoying musical and dance (both considered an affront to Islam,) as entertainment and indulging in lifestyles the fanatics of the Saudi religious community, Isis or al-Qaeda target would find depraved and abhorrent.
Another factor to consider is these are all events where the mixing of men and women and the presence of gay people are absolutely normal. Such behaviour is denounced by puritan Wahhabis and Salafi jihadis alike as insulting to Allah. Followers of these cults both live in a cultural environment in which such people and activities are regarded as not only sinful but contagously so. Responses may differ but the hatred is the same.
The responsibility Western governments bear for facilitating terrorist attacks on their own citizens is obvious but seldom even referred to by mainstream media. Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil producer at the moment and leaders are afraid to lose the 'liberal/progressive' vote among their own population by sanctioning oil extraction in areas where there are known reserves because of the misguided pseudo - science of the climate change lobby. Nations and corporate entities need to maintain the business alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil states, and the price they must pay is tolerance of the religious extremists intolerant efforts to convert the world to their brand of Islam. Thus the Unitd nations, NATO or governments whose people have been affected by Islamic extremism have never held the real cilprits to account. Instead the governments of the developed world are guilty of supporting a repressive and sectarian, theocratic ideology which is known to have inspired Salman Abedi, whose father has been a leading light in the rise of extremism in Libya. We know little of Abedi's life because communities like the one he was part of are adept at segregating themselves, but the target of his attack and the method of his death a classic ISIS / Al Nusra / AlQaeda modus operandi.
The reason these two demonic organisations were able to survive and expand despite the billions – perhaps trillions – of dollars spent on the futile "war on terror" (a considerable slice of it on the US Air Force bid to flatten the Hindu Kush mountain range where Al Qaeda were not hiding out) is that those responsible for preventing another 9 /11 deliberately chose the wrong target and have gone on doing so. After 9/11, President George Dubya Bush, supported by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair portrayed Iraq and Afghanistan as the enemies rather than Saudi Arabia. In a case of deja vu all over again President Trump, who has sold out to the military / industrial complex even more quickly that the cocksucker barack Obama did, is ludicrously accusing Iran of being the source of most terrorism in the Middle East.
Those of us who have questioned the official 9/11 narrative are routinely branded 'conspiracy theorists', but there is nothing covert or conspiratorial about the deliberate blindness of British and American governments to the source of the beliefs that has inspired the massacres of which Manchester is only the latest repulsive example.RELATED POSTS: Greenteeth Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] ... [ Writerbeat ] ... [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]... [ Ian's Authorsden Pages ]... [ It's Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [Latest Posts] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [ Authorsden blog ] ... [Daily Stirrer Headlines]
[ Ian at Facebook ]