The boomerang effect of terrorism and Britain

By Jane Calvary

Investigative journalist

After the Paris attacks, much of the British political and media debate on terrorism is now focused on preventive measures. The widespread narrative that political Islam creates terrorism has dominated much of the debate, and the main themes are Islamophobic sentiments.

In the conclusion speech at the end of his two-day visit to the United States, the British Premier warned that Britain is to face a generational struggle to defeat the "poisonous death cult" of what he called Islamist extremism. Addressing the British Commons, the Home Secretary ordered security measures at the borders increased and warned of imminent potential “Mumbai-style” terrorist attacks. That was followed by anti-terror chief warning that police should not go out on streets alone!

The coalition government has already upgraded the security level to severe. According to some security experts, the British establishment regards the terror level in Britain at the upper level of severe and there is a chance that the government quickly raises the level to critical. The severe threat level means that a terrorist attack is highly likely, and the critical level is the highest threat level in which an attack is expected imminently.

Civil liberty campaigners and activists are concerned that Britain has already turned into a police state in which officers are gradually turning into Orwellian thought police. Social observers argue that the government is ceasing the opportunity to further the Draconian measures while deliberately leaving the root causes of terrorism untouched. There is no objective, quantifiable and systemic transition of a peaceful human being turning into a violent terrorist. However, it is widely believed that Britain’s imperialistic approach around the globe, particularly since mid-20th century, has been one of the most significant enablers of terrorism, encouraging individuals to resort to violence.

The current counter-terrorism strategies of the coalition government are based on the flawed view of eliminating the terrorists by confronting them with hard power. Such strategies stifle both: they damage the hard-earned democracy while instead of eliminating the cause of terrorism simply fights with the products. That won’t work and won’t make the society any safer.

So what should the British establishment do?

•           Britain should cut the long chain of invasions and occupations of other countries.

According to revelations of the book “All the Countries We've Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To,” during its so-called colorful empire history, the United Kingdom invaded 90 percent of the countries around the globe. The research that the book is based on shows that out of 200 countries in the world only 22 have never experienced any invasion by the British. And indeed the invasion of Afghanistan and illegal occupation of Iraq have been the most significant recent military adventures of Britain.

After more than a decade since the invasions, almost all British officials now concede that the occupation of Iraq triggered a significant upsurge in terrorist activities against the United Kingdom. The production of opium in Afghanistan has spiked since 2001, providing a constant revenue for Taliban and al-Qaeda. While the conflicts have propelled hatred against Britain in both countries and among other Muslim nations, the illegal wars have also radicalized a generation of youths inside Britain. The resentment against imperialistic invasion of Britain is not restricted to the Muslim world. Even in Northern Ireland, there remains a widespread belief that those labeled by London as terrorists are actually freedom fighters against occupation of the Irish motherland. The use of weapons against the British occupiers or targeting Britain’s interests elsewhere has been condoned for decades.

•           Britain has a dark history of supporting and sponsoring terrorism. It should stop!

State sponsor of terrorism is a designation applied to the states that have repeatedly provided support for acts of terrorism and terrorists. Reviewing the British establishment foreign policy leads to the strong conclusion that Britain could be placed at the top of the list of state sponsors of terrorism. According to the data obtained under freedom of information act, it is estimated that over 500 terrorist leaders and war criminals are living in the United Kingdom, making the country a retirement home for them.

In addition, according to concrete evidence, the British security apparatus uses various black operations to support proscribed terrorist groups. These groups are freely acting on British soil against other countries such as Iran, Russia, China, Ireland, and many more.

It is also evident that Britain is caught between a rock and a hard place due to its all-out support of the Takfiri terrorists in Syria, who are now turning against London. No one can deny that Britain along with its international partners created the Takfiri monster in Syria, and this mad dog is now biting back the hands that created it. For over three years, Britain supported militancy and violence in Syria in a bid to topple the government of Bashar Al-Assad. Today, backward Persian Gulf Arab rulers are the main financiers of the Takfiri terrorism in Syria and Iraq and Britain is aware of it. London officials are not prepared to head straight to the root of support as these countries are close friends of Britain in the Middle East.

•           Britain should end supporting dictatorships. Despotism backfires as terrorism.

Modern British governments have a long history of supporting dictatorships and despots with arms trade, political backing, training despots’ notorious security services and brutal police, media propaganda in favor of dictators and even objective guarantees that Britain will stand behind them if they face a revolution.

Britain’s policy towards such regimes today is no exception. The coalition government and its predecessor have been busy staunchly supporting any corrupt, torturing, backward, fundamentalist regime as long as Britain’s interests are guaranteed. Such an immoral and shameful stance is theorized as supporting the so-called moderate governments in a bid to confront extremism and terrorism. Such so-called moderate states are the backward Takfiri fanatics of the ruling Saudi family, deposed Egyptian dictator Husni Mubarak, the petty tyrant of Bahrain and Colonel Gaddafi of Libya to name a few.

Apart from being the roots of violence and extremism, such dictatorships seal any possibility of their citizens being able to express their views democratically and peacefully. This will provide a fertile ground for terrorism. Terrorist groups point to it as the evidence that peaceful expression of taught are fruitless and that the only way to achieve political change is through violence and radical processes.

•           Britain should revise its definition of terrorism.

The Syrian conflict has brought to the fore the conspicuous double standard in the approach of Britain towards the whole question of terrorism. The so-called friends of Syria have provided funds, logistical support, arms, military and intelligence consultations and training to the Takfiri rebels in Syria.

These groups have committed unimaginable crimes against humanity in Syria while British officials were labeling them as ‘freedom fighters’ combating ‘Syrian dictatorship.’ Many still remember President Putin’s comments in a joint press conference with David Cameron in 2013.  Cameron tried to push the edge by insulting people’s intelligence over Syria willingly condoning Takfiri rebels’ atrocities in Syria. He was publicly slapped in the face by Putin when he said: “You will not deny that one does not really need to support the people who not only kill their enemies, but open up their bodies, eat their intestines in front of the public and cameras. Are these the people you want to support? Is it them who you want to supply with weapons? Then this probably has little relation to humanitarian values that have been preached in Europe for hundreds of years.”

Shortly after, the British intelligence apparatus had to revise its previous assessment of Syrian conflict conceding that Takfiri rebels are doomed to fail. Cameron had to see the world as it was and not as he liked it to be. In a matter of days, the old ‘freedom fighters’ turned into Jihadi terrorists in British foreign policymakers’ eyes. However, that was too late. According to the British Home Secretary, the Takfiri rebels (of whom over 500 are British nationals) have now turned into the biggest terrorist threat to Britain in its history, a threat that could simply be averted if the British establishment had an honest definition of terrorism at first place.

JC/HJL

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.co.uk