10 min read Immigration Islam Politics Terrorism

What’s so bad about the term ‘Islamic Terrorism’?

With bated breath, many on the right waited for the headline to come out 'Westminster attacker found to have no links to Islam(ic State)' - or something of that vein. Well it did and just as many of us thought, the police and government alike began to do damage limitation on behalf of Islam to prevent rising nationalist sentiment within the UK.

During the 20th century, statistics regarding terrorism in Europe were largely focussed around the conflict between the British government and the IRA in Ireland. However, since 2004, terrorist incidents in Europe have almost been entirely associated with some form of Islamic jihadism.

In the aftermath of attacks in France and last week, in Britain, I often find myself asking the following 3 questions.

Why is the west (besides Donald Trump) so scared of using the term ‘Islamic terrorism’?

Why do successive governments try to distance themselves from the ethnic/cultural differences that motivate Islamic terrorists today?

Why do campaigners continue to spread the lie that we only associate terrorism with attacks by brown-skinned people who happen to be Muslim, yet let attacks by white males go down as homicide?

To me, these questions go largely unaddressed in the media and politicians in the aftermath of our citizens being brutally slaughtered on their own streets.

I often find the statistics on the relationships between attacker and victim to be largely telling. The obvious relationship between Muslim and the average western pedestrian features in each attack and despite these stats being blatantly plastered across every tabloid and broadsheet in the form of tables, graphs and even in the attackers name, we are asked on the same page of the argument to accept entirely contradictory ‘facts’, with statements such as ‘lone actor’ or ‘isolated group of individuals’ to describe the attacker(s) and their motives. With the exception of The Express and Daily Mail, the truth – seemingly – is racist.

It’s not surprising that groups of left-wingers hide behind the ‘racist’ card as a reason against recognising the raw statistics. To many liberals, the term itself legitimises any argument even if the facts speak volumes to the contrary. Liberals can not debate an issue that is deemed ‘racist’. The risk of causing offence to that group is more important to them than getting to the truth. With the rights of minority groups far surpassing those of the rest of the population these days, even western democracy is beginning to cow in fear, giving minorities such as those who follow Islam the whip hand over our very way of life.

I find the speeches and policy statements by the government and police in these circumstances to be wanting. In comparison to reality.

By looking at the facts as they present themselves, ignoring ‘expert’ opinion which is demonstrably left-wing and politically motivated, I can create a clear picture of why not referring to the relevant attacks for what they are – Islamic terrorism – is actually causing more islamophobia, and nationalism in Europe and abroad. This attitude, act of cowardice in the face of obvious affronts to our democracy by a specific group is in fact tying the hands of governments to deal with the issue at hand, and also in dealing with the racist nationalism which follows from groups of people in western European states.

terror20161220-i2

Source: The Telegraph

There was a time between 2007 and 2012 when people could say confidently that it is wrong to misappropriate the act of ‘terrorism’ with Islam, as figures suggest above, people killed by acts of Islamic terrorism during this time were minute. However in 2012, to many on the right that changed. The increase in attacks by Islamic terrorists caused the increase in far-right and nationalist sentiment in the UK, in particular with the racist British National Party (BNP) gaining support alongside the English Defence League. Both had links to neo-Nazi organisations. Although the EDLs rise to prominence was on the back of horrific actions by Islamic fundamentalists against British troops on a homecoming parade in Luton, they began becoming as much of an affront to democracy as those Islamic fundamentalists.

KHALID-MASOOD-640x480

With bated breath, many on the right a few days ago waited for the headline to come out; ‘Westminster attacker found to have no links to Islam(ic State)’ – or something of that vein. Well it did and just as many of us thought, the police and government alike began to do damage limitation on behalf of Islam to prevent any further rising of nationalist sentiment within the UK. This, all the same in France after the 2 years of attack after attack by people who ‘happened to believe’ in Islam murdering innocent nationalised citizens.

_90520898_french_terror_attacks_timelinev4

Source: BBC News

Theresa May began damage limitation the day after the Westminster attack. Whilst condemning the attack and making all the necessary comments you’d expect in responding to the mood of the nation, she made it clear in her speech by the language used that this was not to do with Islam. She says it was a “perversion of the Islamic faith” which is a quote often echoed by politicians in the wake of such disasters.

The playing down of events which successive politicians have done through every Islamic attack and not with any other form of terrorism, be it white-nationalist, or IRA motivated, has caused a greater divide amongst the peoples of a democracy than simply acknowledging the obvious could ever do.

It’s fair enough to say that if an Atheist or a Christian or a Vegan or even a Feminist, decided to run their car off the road, killing and seriously injuring numerous people before stabbing a police officer we wouldn’t associate their associated cause or belief with their act. No one would consider that a leading factor for the assailant, even if they hate meat eaters, common sense or straight people would be their deeply held beliefs. But Islam has a different problem, maybe it’s just a PR problem like they suggest, but they have one none-the-less. Every single terrorist incident, with the exception of the murder of Jo Cox, in the last 5 years has been committed by a Muslim.

It cannot be ignored.

If you look at Islam as a religion, the signs should be obvious that it is a religion up to no good. Arguably, Islam has spent the majority of its modern existence under the thumb of the west or some major dictator, it has struggled to show signs of development in the post-colonial years, to the extent of the French Revolution, Russian Revolution etcetera. The main issue is the perpetuation of Sharia in the Middle East and of course today, how that has created Islamic State.

France has recognised this, and it may be why it has had such a devastating response from Islamic State on the streets of Paris and Nice. France believes in enforcing western values, France (excluding its current president Hollande) has a wilful intolerance of Islam. It has been forced by IS to reject wholesale, a way of life that does not just run contrary to that of democracy but also against the very nature and fabric of what western society stands for and the tricolour of French life.

Liberty: Freedom of expression no matter where and when, Equality: Between men and women, all genders, races and beliefs, Fraternity: The sharing of common interests, of family and friendship above ideology.

we-terrorism-1970-2015final.png

Source: Datagraver. 2015 was an awful year for terrorism especially in France, it has only stayed the same since, the figures since 2012 are higher almost entirely due to Islamic extremism.

Germany has missed the point of protecting its own western values as a core principle of democracy, evident in the horrendous sex attacks on the streets of Cologne by 1200 refugee men this year, many of them hired to provide event security throughout the new years celebrations. In the UK we had a similar attitude until 2016. A muslim rape gang was allowed to live and operate in the town of Rotherham for 25 years before being shut down, simply because the council were too scared of appearing racist and Islamaphobic.

If the values of Sharia, the idea that a women’s vote in court is worth half that of a mans, that a woman must not leave the house unless ordered too by her husband, who is entitled to marry many other women, that she must wear a full face and body covering, that she must be enslaved to her husband are considered to be compatible with democracy then why is it every single country with the state religion of Islam is a dictatorship?.. Besides Turkey, which has a questionable system and a questionable president who has made it his career trying to undermine European democracy.

If Islam believes in democracy so much, as many academics struggle to explain to me, why do 23% of British Muslims want Sharia Law in the UK?

Does a religion of peace endorse homosexuality or oppose it? According to the same poll half of British Muslims think homosexuality is wrong . 52% of Muslims in the UK think gay people should be locked up…

This was a poll by Channel 4, hardly an organisation known for it’s ‘hate speech’ against Islam, in fact it’s currently state-owned.

You can talk of how we [the British] have been engaged in arming Islamic fundamentalists for decades, from Saddam Hussain to Usama Bin Laden. The Taliban in Afghanistan who then spilled into Iraq as AQI, to ironically fight the British and Americans and recently, Libyan rebels which we armed, who’ve splintered into ISIL and now fight in Syria and Iraq against Assad, but also against us as they now bomb and murder innocent civilians on our streets. Yet all these states have lived in turmoil most of their existence, the most they’ve known of peace is during the reigns of dictators like Gaddafi and Hussain who had control over their warring factions. Baathists, Shias and Sunni sects were managed with iron fists, and it’s my opinion that until Islam is abandoned or until their home countries have had a period of democratic stability through a similar – albeit undemocratic – iron fist, they will never be compatible with western culture. There is an intolerable, secular, anguish between all factions of Islam in these countries, that will never dissipate until they have destroyed each other. Putin in Syria backed the right faction, government’s in that region maintain control, democracy leads to instability, take Egypt during the Arab Spring, it had democracy for a blip in its lifetime before it was exploited by a military junta.

Referring to Islam as a religion of peace when it’s home is in so much turmoil, and isolating the attacker or associating his actions with a ‘mental illness’ such as in Nice only serves to do the opposite of deflecting the blame. It creates a nasty and divisive kind of nationalism in response, the EDL, BNP kind. What these terrorist incidents all have in common, from Charlie Hebdo to Nice in that year of utter hell for the French people, is that they were all part of the Islamic faith. That much is, and must be clear.

It is far easier instead of appeasement, for a democratic government to spend its time being pro-active, by condemning the actions of the wider group, creating a sense of collective disappointment in how ones own religious belief has caused this much pain and discord to the western democracies many Muslims say they love (like France).

The growth of far-right and nationalist groups has ironically forced governments to get tougher on their descriptions of Islamic terrorism however if the government condemns Islam, it then has the right to condemn its own people for rising up in violence and vitriol against it. It has a chance to protect people without siding on ideological lines. At least the government would be able to say: “We can, and have dealt with it. We know where the threat is coming from, we do not tolerate Islamic terrorism as much as we do not tolerate racist nationalism and we can prove it by our actions and words.”

It’s because the west has been so scared to stoke the fires started by Islamic terrorism that in fact they have lost control of the fire completely which spreads uncontrollably through communities in London in the aftermath of last week, and in Paris, Belguim, Cologne. Government’s will not touch the Islam issue, they will barely touch the nationalist issue, and look what has happened to Western Europe as a result. Nationalism is rife within most of the major European states; Germany, France, the Netherlands, Britain, Sweden. Islamic terrorism is greater than it has ever been. It is going to take nationalists to fix the problem, the public are not nationalist by nature but if that is all there is to solve their fears and worries about a government increasingly in sympathetic to terrorists, political parties are going to continue to adopt nationalist policies and continue to appeal to further right of the spectrum.

Just look what happened when Charlie Hebdo published a cartoon about the prophet Mohammed. Muslims in France didn’t like it I can recall.

o-100-LASHES-570

Source:

The Telegraph

Breitbart News

The Independent

BBC News

The Guardian

The Daily Mail

Channel 4 News

0 comments on “What’s so bad about the term ‘Islamic Terrorism’?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: