State Sanctioned Murder

It is impossible to get away from what is the by far biggest story in this part of the world right now. In a horribly dramatic series of events over the past fortnight, we have seen a second attempt at bombing the London Underground. We have also seen the first bitter fruits of the authorities’ campaign to counter the threat posed by suicide bombers in Britain.
In an event that will shame the British police for years to come, an innocent Brazilian living in London was butchered by anti-terrorist police, shot five times through the head on the floor of a train in the suburb of Stockwell.
This was a crime. No more. No less. And someone should be held accountable. But we’ll come back to that.
Make no mistake, Britain is reeling under the impact of the series of terrorist attacks that have hit London. No one on the other side of the Irish Sea knows rightly what the future holds. There is fear and anger in the air. There is also an increasing sense of disquiet at the way in which events have been managed – or rather mismanaged – by the British government. As yet criticisms have been muted. But I don’t believe that they either can or should stay that way.
As the police sift through the evidence, it is possible that they will begin to assemble a picture of the scale of the threat from militant Islamic extremists in Britain. Then again, they may not. For even if they apprehend the four men, who were responsible for the second, botched operation, what assurance can there be now, that there are not ten or twenty or fifty or a hundred or a thousand others, waiting in the wings, ready to mount another even more ruthless attack?
What can be said with conviction, on the information available to date, is that certain British-born and British-based Muslims feel strongly enough about their grievances with the British government to launch suicide bomb attacks that are designed to cause the maximum carnage, including the inevitable loss of life.
Manifestly, this is a new development. The London suicide bombs of 7 July 2005 were the first of their kind in Britain. The fact that a second co-ordinated attack of a similar type went haywire is of little comfort in the circumstances. Another may be planned. And another. And another again. For all the innate stoicism of Londoners, and their admirable determination to keep on keeping on, the effect of this realisation must be devastating.
For a start, there is increasing evidence of intolerance of Muslims in England. Race hate crimes have increased hugely. If the suicide bombings go on, this will escalate, and London – and other parts of England – may yet see pogroms on a scale unimaginable in the very recent past.
The economic fallout is also likely to be severe. Already, habits are changing. People are less confident about using the Underground transport system. Traffic jams have intensified, as people use their cars instead of public transport. Shops, restaurants and bars are suffering: no one feels quite the same about going out. Confidence is slipping. The ingredients are all there for a major downturn, which could see what had been a booming economy go into a tailspin.
I don’t mean to come on like a prophet of doom. But there is nothing, absolutely nothing, about which to be cheerful in this scenario.
At their best, right now the prospects are bleak. Who wants a police State? Who wants a government that sanctions the murder of an innocent in cold blood by members of the police force whose very raison d'être is supposed to be to protect citizens? Who wants an escalating stand-off between young Muslims and the forces of so-called law and order?
Who wants race hate? Who wants attacks on mosques? Who wants houses being burnt down? Who wants every trip on the tube to be poisoned with paranoia? Who wants constant disruption on the way to and from work? Who wants the unholy mess that the British people have been landed with, by the government of Tony Blair?
After the first bombs, there was a faint hope that it might be an isolated incident, and that things would slip quietly back to normal. Now that hope has been scuppered, and not just by the failed second bombing attempt. The government has played its part too, with a shoot to kill policy that reeks of the worst mistakes made by previous British administrations in the North.
So what can be done? It is staring the British people in the face but not many seem ready to acknowledge it. To avoid further bloodshed at home, Britain must withdraw from Iraq and from other theatres of aggression in Arab and Muslim countries.
There is no doubt that the suicide bombings have been inspired by the fact that Britain has joined the US in waging war first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. When Tony Blair decided that Britain would stand shoulder to shoulder with its ally the United States, he signed up to the inevitability of terrorism on the ground in Britain. And as long as he maintains that position, entirely oblivious to the fact of American aggression in the Middle East, and of the murderous brutality of the US-backed Israeli regime in Palestine, then the terrorism will continue.
The British government line is that these people are “out to destroy our way of life”. There isn’t the slightest shred of evidence that Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda have the even a remote interest in the British – or indeed the US – way of life.
However, bin Laden has been very clear about his demands in relation to the activities of the US, the UK and others in invading and oppressing Arab nations.
Those countries that supported the actions of the US war machine in the Middle East are defined as legitimate targets. Those that didn’t aren’t. Al-Qaeda will not be attacking Sweden, Switzerland or Iceland any time in the near future. But, as sure as night follows day, the US, the UK, Italy, Australia, Poland and others who were implicated in the invasion of Iraq will be hit and hit and hit again.
The question that British people have to ask is what the hell are they doing in Iraq in the first place? What the hell are they doing in Afghanistan? They are invaders – and as such have been directly exposed to terrorism in London and elsewhere by Tony Blair. It is as simple as that, and – for the record – anyone who said as much in the run-down to the decision to go to war has been proven exactly right.
All of this is argued, with unassailable logic, by David Morrison, in an article that can be read now on hotpress.com. It is a superbly researched piece that exposes the lies of the Blair government and – approached from the perspective of a loyal British subject based in Northern Ireland – makes an entirely compelling case for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.
The case has been strengthened considerably since the article was written. Indeed there is a further case now for the arraignment of Tony Blair, and of the head of the Metropolitan Police, Ian Blair (no relation), on charges of accessory to murder.
At the time of writing, it seems to me that there has been a remarkable conspiracy in the British media to underplay the implications of the murder of Jean Charles de Manezes. Ian Blair described it as a tragedy. This is a preposterous misuse of language. It was murder – a brutal and bloody crime, fatally committed against an unarmed and entirely innocent man. It may have occurred during the hunt for terrorists, but the fact is that the Metropolitan Police butchered an ordinary civilian, differentiated only by the colour of his skin, in cold blood.
Who sanctioned the decision to take advice in relation to ways of dealing with suicide bombers from the Israeli security forces? The Israeli army have a reputation as murderous thugs, who have killed hundreds – indeed it would probably be more accurate to say thousands – of innocent individuals. Are these the people from which a civilized administration should take advice? And anyway, who precisely is behind the policy of shooting first and asking questions later?
Is the intelligence from which the police are working of such low calibre that they have no idea who else lives in a house in which a suspect has a flat or apartment? And why is it necessary when you have already apprehended an individual, when you are – as eyewitnesses described it – already sitting on him, for Christ’s sake, to unload five shots straight into his head?
A man has been murdered in circumstances that were genuinely horrific. Lame excuses about the difficulties that police officers are facing in combating terrorism should be dismissed immediately. Someone must be properly held accountable. I suspect that the responsibility goes right to the top.
Read 'Why London Is Being Bombed' by David Morrison