On Wednesday 7 January, 11.30am CET, masked gunmen armed with AK47s burst into the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine office, shooting staff after seeking out cartoonists by name.
Five minutes later gunmen shot a Muslim police on their escape leaving 12 dead French citizens behind. The gunmen crashed their car and hijacked another vehicle. While forcing the driver out of the car they, told him “If the media ask you anything, tell them it’s al-Qaida in Yemen.”
News of a new attack in Paris on the early morning next day plunges Paris into fear and shock even further. A 25-year-old trainee policewoman is the victim. Next day the person responsible for the attack storms a Jewish grocery at Porte de Vincennes in Paris taking five hostages.
The four days of horror in Paris ends as all hostage takers, and 17 Parisians were killed.
The British Queen was swift to send prayers to the victims of the incident. She said: “Prince Philip and I send our sincere condolences to the families of those who have been killed and to those who have been injured in the attack in Paris this morning.”
Such gesture was followed by the British Prime Minister David Cameron asserting: “This country stands united with the French people in our opposition to all forms of terrorism.”
Then it was Theresa May’s turn to jump the stage, making the case for new controversial counter-terrorism and security bill.
Even optimistic social observers in Britain can quickly realize that the British coalition government is seizing the opportunity to push the society further toward an Orwellian police state with Muslims being marginalized more than ever. The Coalition government is bringing back the argument of necessity for a significant overhaul of the old counter terrorism act.
The proposed amendments to the bill give power to the government to confiscate passports for at least 30 days including from those under 18.
Citizens thought to have been involved in terror activities abroad could be blocked from returning for up to 2 years with an option to extend that unless they agree to certain strict conditions and there could be tighter aviation rules which would include no-fly lists, putting suspects' names on a blacklist and additional passenger screenings. Decisions will be made on the basis of what is called” reasonable suspicion” of involvement in terrorist activities.
It is evident that the new law could compromise existing laws on immigration, citizenship and human rights while a brief review of the last few months of the British establishment policy against Takfiri terrorists in Iraq and Syria has raised many questions about sincerity of Cameron’s cabinet in effectively tackling Takfiri terrorists’ threat.
• Why is the British government so eager to launch air strikes against ISIL while it has proved to be ineffective?
Britons across the society have already realized that the so-called Free Syrian Army is a fiction and so is the mutated version of al-Qaeda commonly known as ISIL. The British officials insist that the most effective way to eliminate ISIL is to bomb their bases. What bases? They don’t have any! The territory now under the occupation of Takfiri ISIL is bigger than the size of Britain, and there are up to 25,000 of them roaming and committing the most barbaric and heinous crimes imaginable. They don’t concentrate in bases. They don’t follow conventional military tactics. Do the math!
According to concrete evidences, the US, the UK, and their allies aim to prop up the terrorists in Syria and pile up the pressure on legitimate Damascus Government by launching the so-called coalition of willing air strikes. They claim the objectives of the strikes are the obliteration of ISIL, but in practice, it has served as an excuse to destroy Syria’s infrastructure and strengthen their presence in Iraq. Britain is bombing Iraq for 100 years, and they dropped chemical bombs on them in the 1920s. During these years, bombing Iraq has been a fixed part of the British campaign to control Iraq and the recent campaign is no exception.
• Why isn’t the British establishment using its leverages against regimes supporting ISIL across the region?
The British politicians are either dumb or insincere about tackling ISIL. They would rather have exhibitionist gestures in imaginary debates in parliament and turn blind eyes on the roots and causes of ISIL atrocities. ISIL is a death cult. It’s a gang of terrorist murderers. It’s not an army, and it is certainly not a state. ISIL could not survive even a week if the constant flow of the hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of tons of weapons from the so-called “Friends of Syria” is stopped. Turkey’s commitment to arming and maintaining the flow of Takfiris into Iraq and Syria are nothing but facts on the ground. The expensive talents governing Turkey are now tangled in the web they have woven, yet stubbornly continuing their policies. According to the British parliamentary report on Britain-Turkey bilateral relationships, the British government’s continuing support for Turkey’s EU membership provides a reliable basis for the development of enhanced UK-Turkey bilateral relation. Has anyone heard even a single criticism or condemnation of Turkish government policies toward ISIL among the high ranking British officials? The last people who should be returning to the scene of their past crimes in Syria and Iraq are British officials, yet they flagrantly form the coalition against ISIL with the Persian Gulf petty tyrants. Saudi Arabia has 700 warplanes. Has anyone seen a picture of their jets fighting in Syria or Iraq? It is a bare truth that Saudi Arabia is the nest from which ISIL and other Takfiri terrorists around the globe are coming from. Is there even a trace of British officials being at odds with Saudi, Emirati or Qatari rulers when it comes to Syria? Meanwhile, It is claimed that ISIL is the richest terrorist organization in history. The reports estimate that only during the last six months the al-Qaeda splinter group has gained access to over 2 billion dollars that is far higher than Ireland's annual military expenditure. That is thanks to developing oil and gas trade webs across the region. The group has captured five oilfields that provide them almost 2.5 million dollars a day and the oil is mostly exported to Turkey. Add to this the private donations from supporters in Persian Gulf countries. Such vast amount of revenue can’t be funneled to ISIL without resorting to conventional banking routes. Has anyone ever heard about any plans to track and block ISIL routes of funding via banking system?
• How real is the prosecution of peddlers of hateful Takfiri ideologies in Britain?
Listening to the British officials’ remarks on ISIL, one may be deceived that Cameron and other British figures are no one, but knights in shining armor in the epic battle against Takfiris and their threat to the British national security. In August, Cameron raised the national threat level to “severe,” which means an attack by ISIL supporters is highly likely. Since then almost on an everyday basis and all over the British mainstream media there is a talk of urgency in battling Takfiri ideology and barring ISIL supporters from traveling abroad to join the terrorists in Iraq and Syria. Are elements of British establishment complicit in the spreading the hateful ISIL ideology across the society? No doubt! There are over 600 Salafi Takfiris of British origin now fighting in Syria and Iraq under ISIL flag. All of them are directly or indirectly associates of British Salafi hate preachers who are now freely promoting the so-called causes of ISIL. The likes of Anjem Choudary and Muhammad Al-Arifi have never been charged with terrorism while they openly roam in Britain, lecture in support of ISIL and recruit for the terrorist gang. Even the terrorist who shot dead a soldier when he stormed the Canadian parliament last month communicated with Choudary on Twitter. It was early in November when another proof of Britain's complicity in channeling terrorists to Syria emerged. Abu-Rumaysah, a notorious British ISIL terrorist, left Britain and shortly after was seen in Syria. Prior to his travel, British police had detained him, asked him a few questions and then let him loose. How was he able to leave the UK and join a force that has declared war against Britain, without the knowledge of the authorities?
What remains to be seen is how long the British figures can try to keep abusing ISIL threat for their militaristic and Orwellian approaches both nationally and internationally.
By Jane Calvary