The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
Britain Refuses to Accept How Terrorists Really Work
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Conservative government largely avoided being blamed during the election campaign for its failure to stop the terrorist attacks. It appealed to British communal solidarity in defiance of those who carried out the atrocities, which was a perfectly reasonable stance, though one that conveniently enables the Conservatives to pillory any critics for dividing the nation at a time of crisis. When Jeremy Corbyn correctly pointed out that the UK policy of regime change in Iraq, Syria and Libya had destroyed state authority and provided sanctuaries for al-Qaeda and Isis, he was furiously accused of seeking to downplay the culpability of the terrorists. Nobody made the charge stick that it was mistaken British foreign policies that empowered the terrorists by giving them the space in which to operate.

A big mistake in British anti-terrorist strategy is to pretend that terrorism by extreme Salafi-jihadi movements can be detected and eliminated within the confines of the UK. The inspiration and organisation for terrorist attacks comes from the Middle East and particularly from Isis base areas in Syria, Iraq and Libya. Their terrorism will not end so long as these monstrous but effective movements continue to exist. That said, counter-terrorism within the UK is much weaker than it need be.

The attacks in London and Manchester come very much from the Isis playbook: minimum human resources deployed to maximum effect. Overall direction is distant and at a minimum, no professional military skills on the part of the killers are necessary, and the absence of guns makes them almost impossible to forestall. Tracing the movement of a small number of weapons is usually easier than following a large number of people.

There is a self-interested motive for British governments to portray terrorism as essentially home-grown cancers within the Muslim community. Western governments as a whole like to pretend that their policy blunders, notably those of military intervention in the Middle East since 2001, did not prepare the soil for al-Qaeda and Isis. This enables them to keep good relations with authoritarian Sunni states like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan, which are notorious for aiding Salafi-jihadi movements. Placing the blame for terrorism on something vague and indefinable like “radicalisation” and “extremism” avoids embarrassing finger-pointing at Saudi-financed Wahhabism which has made 1.6 billion Sunni Muslims, a quarter of the world’s population, so much more receptive to al-Qaeda type movements today than it was 60 years ago.

Deliberate blindness to very specific places and people – Sunni states, Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia, Syrian and Libyan armed opposition – is a main reason why “the War on Terror” has failed since 9/11. Instead, much vaguer cultural processes within Muslim communities are targeted: President Bush invaded Iraq, which certainly had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, and today President Trump is denouncing Iran as the source of terrorism at the very moment that Isis gunmen are killing people in Tehran. In Britain the main monument to this politically convenient lack of realism is the ill-considered and counter-effective Prevent programme. This not only fails to find terrorists, but actively assists them, by pointing the security agencies and police in the wrong direction. It also poisons the waters for anybody trying to improve relations between the British state and 2.8 million Muslims in the UK by generating a mood of generalised suspicion and persecution.

Under the 2015 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, people who work in public bodies – teachers, doctors, social workers – have a legal duty to report signs of terrorist sympathy among those they encounter, even though nobody knows what these are. The disastrous consequences of this are explained, with a wealth of devastating supporting evidence, by Karma Nabulsi in a recent article on the Prevent programme in the London Review of Books entitled ‘Don’t Go to the Doctor.’ She tells the story of Syrian refugees, a man and his wife, who sent their small son, who spoke almost no English, to a nursery school. Because of his recent traumatic experiences in Syria he spent much of his time there drawing planes dropping bombs. The staff of the nursery might have been expected to comfort the young war victim, but instead they called the police. These went to see the parents and questioned them separately, shouting questions like: “How many times a day do you pray? Do you support President Assad? Who do you support? What side are you on?”

If Isis or al Qaeda were asked to devise a programme least likely to hamper their attacks and most liable to send the police off on wild goose hunts, they would find it difficult to devise anything more helpful to themselves than Prevent and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act. The great majority British people have as much idea about how to identify a potential terrorist as their ancestors 400 years ago did about detecting witches. The psychology is much the same in both cases and 2015 Act is in effect a crackpots’ charter in which five per cent of the British population are vaguely regarded as suspicious. Nabulsi writes that a Freedom of Information request to the police “revealed that more than 80 per cent of the reports on individuals suspected of extremism were dismissed as unfounded”.

The Government may persuade the gullible that turning everybody working for the state into a potential informant produces lots of useful intelligence. In fact, it serves to clog up the system with useless and misleading information. On the rare occasion it produces a nugget, there is a good chance that it will be overlooked.


The oversupply of information explains why many who say they reported genuinely suspicious behaviour found that they were ignored. Often this action was very blatant and revealing such as the Manchester bomber Salman Abedi shouting down a preacher in a mosque who criticised Isis. He was also associated with the extreme jihadi Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. One of three killers on London Bridge and in Borough Market, Khuram Butt, had even expressed his pro-Isis views on television and another of the three, the Italian-Moroccan Youssef Zaghba, was stopped by Italian police at Bologna Airport on suspicion of trying to go to fight for Isis or al-Qaeda in Syria. Yet none of these were picked up by the police.

In most cases, potential terrorists do not have to be sniffed out, but have made their Isis sympathies only too apparent. The government’s obsessive belief that terrorists are isolated individuals “radicalised” by the internet without being a member of any network is simply untrue. Dr Peter Neumann of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at Kings College London is quoted as saying that “the number of cases where people have been entirely radicalised by the internet is tiny, tiny, tiny.”

Absurdities like the Prevent programme mask the fact that Isis and al-Qaeda type terrorists are closely interlinked, mostly by participation in or sympathy for the jihadi armed opposition in the Libyan and Syrian wars. “If you start connecting the dots,” says Professor Neumann, “a very large number of those in Britain who went to Syria were connected to each other, people who had already known each other.” Contrary to conventional and governmental wisdom, terrorist conspiracies have not changed much since Brutus, Cassius and their friends plotted to murder Julius Caesar.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Britain, ISIS, Terrorism 
Hide 49 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Please explain how the Muslim terrorism in the Phillipines and Thailand is tied to Phillipine and Thai policy in the Middle East. Not to mention that attack in Iran. Face it–Muslims are just trouble whereever they are. The best policy is to prevent them from entering a non-Muslim country at all, revoke their citizenship and deport them if they’re already there, and wall them off in their Muslim countries to wreak havoc (or make peace) on or with each other.

  2. Randal says:

    Deliberate blindness to very specific places and people – Sunni states, Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia, Syrian and Libyan armed opposition – is a main reason why “the War on Terror” has failed since 9/11.

    As always, Cockburn is very good on pointing out other people’s wilful blindness to reality, whilst ignoring his own complete refusal, for ideological reasons, to come to terms with mass immigration as the major contributor to societal discord and intercommunal violence, including terrorism.

    • Replies: @KA
    , @shn
    , @Gum
  3. Randal says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    The problem with focussing on islam as the problem is that it leaves the real, broader policy problems (of which the problems with muslims are merely the particularly troublesome aspect at the moment) – mass immigration and military interventionism – unaddressed.

    Halting muslim immigration will be of little benefit if we allow our societies to be destroyed anyway by continued mass immigration of foreigners who are not muslims.

    Likewise, suppressing muslim terrorism will not allow us to live in peace if our foreign policies keep creating future enemies.

    And, of course, the focus on islam plays into the hands of some of those most culpable for the situation in which we find ourselves – the Israel lobby.

    • Agree: reiner Tor, Mark Green
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Diversity Heretic
  4. Malla says:

    Muslims are one of the many bullets the Zionist lobby uses against Europe. And this has happened before. Remember the Moorish conquest of Spain. There is no way 12,000 Moors would have defeated 100000 tough Visigoths on European soil without any inside help from Semites living in Europe.

  5. @Randal

    Agreed. I limited my comments to Muslims because that was the subject of the article. Mass immigration and pointless foreign interventions are harmful even in the absence of Muslim terrorism in a host nation. If we could summon the political will to deal with Muslims as they need to be dealt with in the west, we would be a long way to halting all mass immigration and withdrawing from the Mideast and elsewhere where no vital national interests are at stake.

  6. TG says:

    There are many excellent points here, indeed the western interventions in the middle east have been stupid/counter-productive/clumsy and seemingly designed only to spread chaos and enrich defense contractors.

    Still, it is a fact that the world is a big messy place, and even with the most saintly foreign policy there will be places that breed hatred and violence. The solution is to just not let those people in. If you have (stupidly) let a lot of those people in, then for heaven’s sake stop letting more of them in and hope that in time the newcomers can assimilate.

    Muslim countries that have been bombed by the western alliances are hotbeds of hatred and terrorism. Muslim countries that have not been bombed by the western alliances are hotbeds of hatred and terrorism. There is a pattern here.

    Actually it might be useful for the west to bomb/invade one muslim country: that would be Saudi Arabia, whose global funding of the most extremist and backwards forms of political islam has helped spur so much of this chaos. But the Saudis have powerful friends in the west, so I guess that’s a non-starter.

    Japan has zero muslim terrorism – because they essentially ban muslim immigration. It can work.

  7. woodNfish says:

    The government’s obsessive belief…

    The government doesn’t believe anything of the sort, they are just lying about it because they don’t care to do anything to stop it.

    A few other points – this didn’t start in 2001. In case you have a problem remembering history, the US CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and installed the Shah in 1953. Long before that, the ME was colonized by Britain, France, and Portugal and carved up into convenient states so their resources could be looted by those countries. And long before that the camel-fucking muslims were already killing each other because that is what they do best.

    Lastly, a radical muslim is one who truly wants to become Westernized. All the other ones are either terrorists or terrorists in waiting.

    • Replies: @Ivy
  8. Ivy says:

    Sykes-Picot was an act of supreme arrogance, so cavalierly deciding the fate of millions without their input. Now the echoes of the Great Game are into extra innings, or is it Sudden Death?

  9. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Is Europe Dying? – What I Learned From Visiting Paris, Copenhagen and Poland

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  10. KA says:

    Truth will emerge one day and it won’t be pretty for Washignton , Paris and London. They are the scourges of humanity . It is not Muslim terrorism .

  11. KA says:

    Mass immigration is the direct result of the wars . It is inevitable and it is entirely ethical moral and legal for those who are affected by the wars to seek refuge in Europe .

    America is yet to pay the Iraqis back . America initiated sanctions and wars have destroyed that country. Iraqis have every right to move to USA , UK, and France.

    • Replies: @Randal
  12. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Muslims moving to Britain, Europe and elsewhere in the west IS THE TRUE SOURCE of the problem. No Muslims in your country, no Muslim atrocities in your country. Physical impossibility.

    • Replies: @Mike from Ikea
  13. @anon

    You do realize religious beliefs are not physical items which can be blown up or shot, correct? And that you can probably find passages in the Bible equally as horrifying as those in the Koran? And that you can go online or turn on the TV and find white Christians spouting just as much hatred and bile as jihadist clerics? Just like fake Christians use the religion as an excuse for their abhorrent behavior, so do sick minded Muslims abuse the religion and use passages from the Koran to give weight to their urging of others to commit violent, extreme acts. Of course, let’s not forget that at the same time, the USA is killing many, many, many more innocent people in the Middle East than jihadists could ever hope to kill in the whole of Western civilization. So really, if we had all left each other alone, there would be many more dead Middle Easterners alive today than Westerners. Chickens coming home to roost, my friend, and let’s also not forget that more people in the USA die each year from accidental gunshot wounds at the hands of children than at the hands of terrorists. Perspective, please. When a nation draws back in fear and changes its core values because some terrorists killed a few people, then you’re letting them win. I know no one read to the end of this comment. Cheers!

    • Replies: @Medvedev
    , @another fred
  14. Basudeb says: • Website
    @Diversity Heretic

    The ‘vital national interests’ are at the root of all the trouble.

  15. Medvedev says:

    Is there a country on earth, where Muslims are in power and Christians/Hindus/Buddhists/etc don’t face constant threat and enjoy equal protection and rights?

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  16. @Diversity Heretic

    Should have thought about that before colonising Muslim countries all over the globe. Imperialism is a two way street – racist European vermin who colonised us brown people couldn’t but open the doors to being colonised in turn. Don’t like it? Too bad. I’m not Muslim and I have zero sympathy for European imperialist regimes suffering from Muslim terrorism. They deserve every single thing they get.

    As for your comments about Thais and Filipinos, that would be because Amerikastan and Saudi Barbaria actively stoked Islamic radicalism in Indonesia from the 1960s onwards. Of course it exported itself to Muslim pockets in “Kaffir” countries in the vicinity. Malaysia is suffering it too.

    Actual knowledge and nuance is lost on you bigots, isn’t it, though?

  17. @TG

    “Muslim countries that have been bombed by the western alliances are hotbeds of hatred and terrorism. Muslim countries that have not been bombed by the western alliances are hotbeds of hatred and terrorism.”

    Where are the “hotbeds of terrorism” in Senegal or Mauretania, Comoros or Kazakhstan, Bangladesh or Azerbaijan, do tell?

    • Replies: @Medvedev
  18. Medvedev says:
    @Mike from Ikea

    1. Make excuses for terrorists attacks. Checked.

    2. Liken it to Christianity. Checked.

    Christianity is a religion which adheres to New Testament, a lot of staff has metaphorical meaning and allows separation of Church and the state. Islam, on the contrary, is a political and governmental system that leaves little to imagination and has Sharia law, where you have to submit to it, not to interpret it as you like.

    3. Mention all the “horrors” perpetrated by Christians nowadays. Checked.
    Like, you know, few days ago I turned on TV and it was all over the news: Christian terrorist attacks in Mecca, Riyadh etc. Mike from Ikea, another lie buy terrorist sympathizer. Half of my family is either Muslim or have Muslim background. Yet, I despise terrorist sympathizers like you. Why? Cause it’s not ok to kill someone because of pork sandwich. It’s not ok to kill people because of a cartoon. It’s not ok to kill innocent people and children who just went to watch the concert.

    4. You need to continue as before, letting in more people who sympathize terrorists. Otherwise you let them win. Checked.
    If only our ancestors knew about that. They should have continued as before when Nazis attacked them. Or, maybe, they should have let several million Germans in with prospect of having fifth column in your country. Yeah, and hug, and prey, and light candles … it works, doesn’t it?!

  19. Randal says:

    Mass immigration is the direct result of the wars .

    No, it isn’t, at least as far as the countries of the US sphere are concerned. In the case of Syria, for example there is no reason why a single refugee from that war should be anywhere other than Turkey, Jordan or Lebanon.

    Wars contribute to movements of populations, but it is the wealth of US sphere countries that attracts immigration to those countries and the stupid and corrupt policies of the elites in said countries that enables it.

    America is yet to pay the Iraqis back . America initiated sanctions and wars have destroyed that country. Iraqis have every right to move to USA , UK, and France.

    No, they don’t. The populations of those countries are the victims of the elites responsible for those wars as (to a far greater extent) are the inhabitants of the target countries. Granted, large proportions of the populations of US sphere countries (and especially that of the US itself) have been guilty of culpable gullibility as far as the war propaganda used upon them is concerned, and in many cases of equally culpable enthusiasm for war as a tool of policy, but to punish them all for the crimes of their leaders is merely to extend the injustice.

    • Replies: @KA
    , @Bro Methylene
  20. The fact that Western powers – mostly USA – kill scores of mostly anonymous Muslims (wives and children included) on daily basis, rarely gets a mention in the “mainstream” media. This is the most obvious source of Muslim readiness to kill us in turn, albeit their slaughters are more random than ours, lacking the air force, the drones and the rockets and ordonance we possess. The basic fact is glaringly obvious that they are retaliating for something we are doing and have done to them, on their own land.

    Cockburn’s excellent article is a lucid exposition of our mistakes that allowed fanatical Muslims to spread their wings in the Middle East but says next to nothing why they are doing it. It’s time we gave it some thought and got out of there.

    • Replies: @Medvedev
  21. In western societies it would be extraordinarily difficult to recruit people, some of them married or with small children, who are willing to blow themselves up or be shot by the police, even if they have life insurance policies.

    Does one place an advertisement like an army recruitment video online, offering to travel to far away places, meet exotic people, kill them along with yourself, and get a medal, a free obituary and funeral?

    If we could identify the trick of how this is done in the Middle East, then we would be a long way along the path to prevention. I would put together a team of experts to brainstorm and come up with strategies.

  22. masmanz says:

    First of all these kind of operations by one or two terrorists unconnected with any command or control structure should not be called “attack”, or given the news coverage saying “Britain under siege” or “… at War”. Such sensationalism only increases the self-importance of those degenerates and lets ISIS claim victory. There literally is no way to stop someone carrying a knife or a gun from going out and hurting people. To say that if there were no Muslims then there will be no attack from Muslims is technically correct but that can be said about any person or any group. If there are no drivers there will be no car accidents but would you want to stop everyone from driving just because some of them cause accidents? The percentage of Muslims involved in such atrocities is really really small.
    Blaming Saudi Arabia or even the Wahabi sect is wrong too. Were these people Wahabi? Were they funded by Saudi Arabia? Saudi clerics have always given edicts against terrorism. While Saudi Arabia did support the US in the fight against Soviets in Afghanistan, we should not use that as a permanent argument against the Saudis. There is nothing in the Wahabi creed that urges individuals to go out and kill innocent people.
    Why were these individuals not arrested? Perhaps there were not enough evidence, or perhaps they were working undercover for MI5 or MI6. It is hard for us to figure that out, but the authorities should pursue it and give us an explanation. There is no harm in admitting that a few agents went rouge.

  23. Hank says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    How can anyone be sure that “Muslims” are behind all the violence? Since 911 WAS a frame-up of Muslims/Arabs done by Israeli/USA covert ops, what’s to say that ALL the violence done by “immigrants” is just an addition tho the “smear and demonize Arabs/Muslims” that 911 ushered into the world? It wouldn’t be that hard to recruit “terrorists” to commit these types of acts to further “justify” the war on terror. And while we’re at it, what about the terrible violence that Muslims and Arabs have experienced at the hands of the Western nations since 911. It makes these isolated “terrorist” attacks look like a walk in the park in comparison! Britain refuses to accept how terrorists work? it would be a more accurate statement to say “the Western nations” will not address the “terrorists” in a straightforward manner because they are behind them!

  24. @Fiendly Neighborhood Terrorist

    Third world vermin lashing out at – visibly concerned with US colonization – 99.9 percenters in an alternative media blog’s comments section, as if they are the only source of their countries of origin backwardedness?

    Talk about bigotry, knowledge and nuance.

    Brownies like you are a dime a dozen in the West, we’re full.

    BTW, how’s life and family back in Turdistan?

    Why don’t you just pack up and go back to Turdistan then, being as uncomfortable as you are among us, white Westerners?

    I have zero sympathy for European imperialist regimes suffering from Muslim terrorism. They deserve every single thing they get.

    That is the reason you should be summarily deported to the shithole you and/or your parents came from:

    You are just a bitter little man or woman full of hate towards Europe and white Europeans but happy with our welfare, our safe countries, our freedoms, our relatively equal societies and our high wages. Not only you are angry at the 0,001 percenters – the real cause of colonialism and unjustified wars – you just hate all of us, Whites.

    That is exactly why we are going to round you up and deport all of you back to Turdistan.

    And how much you gonna miss us and our societies once you are back there jackass?

  25. @Anon

    The least he could do is plug in the mike to make it look like more than a prop.

  26. BlingPig says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Please explain how the Muslim terrorism in the Phillipines and Thailand is tied to Phillipine and Thai policy in the Middle East

    I think you misunderstood Patricks point, western foreign policy opened up a vast swathe of territory for AQ and ISIS to thrive, whams existed way before western interventionism in Iraq libya, syria wars but it had no where to go, none of the governments of those nations would allow it inside their borders, the west blew off the lid to a pandoras box.

    this is why Michael Schuerer has been saying for years that “western foreign policy is OBLs most indispensable ally”… what we’ve done the last 16 years would be akin to the allies attacking Poland for Hitler in 1939 and inviting him and the nazi in.

    terrorism in the Philippines and Thailand aren’t tied to their foreign policy, they’re tied to ours!

    • Replies: @BlingPig
  27. BlingPig says:

    that should be “wahbbism” not “whams” … I believe “whams” are a hard core group of george micheal fundamentalists

    • LOL: Talha
  28. KA says:

    America is the culprit here and it should be forced to take refugees . America is also the sole culprit for continued Iraq sanctions and the war . It should be forced to pay just like Anerica forced Saddam to pay despite having quite a few culprits ( itself , Kuwait and Britain
    Those people who have entered EU after 2011 from Syria Libya and Iraq should stay there and that’s the end of the conversation .

  29. Medvedev says:
    @Fiendly Neighborhood Terrorist

    Where are the “hotbeds of terrorism” in Senegal or Mauretania, Comoros or Kazakhstan, Bangladesh or Azerbaijan, do tell?

    Look at this terrorist sympathizer. Excuses, excuses, excuses for killing of innocent people.
    Let me start:

    Министерство внутренних дел Кыргызстана подтвердило наличие более 500 своих граждан на территории Сирии и Ирака. По данным служб безопасности Казахстана, насчитывается около 400 жителей республики, воюющих на Ближнем Востоке.

    According to Ministry of internal affairs of Kyrgyzstan … more than 500 citizens are in Syria and Iraq. According to Kazakhstan security forces there are around 400 citizens fighting in the Middle East.

  30. Medvedev says:
    @George Nikolic

    Syria is a place of military conflict and ongoing civil war. So, yeah, often innocent people die in the conflict, especially when ISIS uses females and children as a human shield.
    Ukraine has an ongoing conflict on the East. Now it is more or less stable, but there were numerous incidents when Ukrainian/rebel forces killed and bombed innocent people.
    I agree with your position:

    It’s time we gave it some thought and got out of there.

    cause no matter what we do and try to be a do-gooders, destroy ISIS etc we will be blamed at the end.

  31. @Mike from Ikea

    I know no one read to the end of this comment.

    Paragraphs would help. 🙂

  32. I know no one read to the end of this comment. Cheers!

    I did. But I’m really no one at all. However, I do want that three minutes of my life back.

  33. @Medvedev

    Kazhakstan, because they dare not. After that … I don’t know that much about Morocco.

    • Replies: @Medvedev
  34. Medvedev says:
    @Philip Owen

    Up until recently people there were under the iron fist of communism. And even after collapse they were ruled by ex-communist clique, who clings to power and try not to fully promote Islam and suppress radical Islam. I guess, authorities there fear that Islamization may pose threat to their power.
    In big cities, you may face Muslim girls in skimpy dresses etc. Yet, in rural areas (more so in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan than in Kazakhstan) there are tendencies in other direction, where women are excluded, forced to feel ashamed for wearing too revealing clothes etc. I wouldn’t mind if they reached a mid-point, the golden mean between too progressive and too conservative. The problem with Islam there is Sharia law, it’s not metaphorical like in many other religions, good virtue isn’t enough, so radicals will always push for it bit by bit.

  35. @Fiendly Neighborhood Terrorist

    Part of the problem is that you were so easy to colonize. Even the Ottomans had no trouble keeping Arabs in line until the West foolishly assisted Arab nationalists in WWI.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  36. 1. it hardly seems likely that cockburn actually believes that these ongoing policies perpetrated upon the middle east (and, well, everywhere) are simply ‘mistaken’ or some sort of gross miscalculation… surely he knows that type of rationale is facile, and ignore the his story of nation-states and powerful cohorts of the 1% imposing THEIR agenda upon us all…
    those wars and genocides aren’t bugs, they’re features…
    it ain’t no ‘mistake’, it ain’t no ‘best intentions’ (like another sweet polly purebred poster opined), it ain’t no foolin’ around; these fuckers play for keeps, and they are psychopaths and greedtards who do NOT give a shit about 99% of the planet being fucked over for their power games and blood money…
    if you can’t get that BASIC premise straight, all the rest that follows is tribe vs tribe bullshit that lets Empire off the hook…
    2. in regards to religions in general, i will merely repeat a quote which is truer than ALL the twue bewievers of all the religions:
    There are good people who will do good things. There are bad people who will do bad things. But, it takes ‘religion’ to make good people do bad things.
    (mic drop)
    3. shit, i can’t stand ‘blue laws’ and other archaic crap legislation we already have which is mostly driven by religio=supremacists, so i will REALLY hate any attempts to enact ANY religio-based laws, sharia, or maria, or yo mama…
    *that* is why i would like to terra-form mars: send ALL the religio-centric nutjobs there, and good riddance…
    4. i would be more ‘get off my nation’s lawn’ about MASS immigration and suggest that ‘those people’ go back to their shitholes and fix them, instead of further shitholing our shithole; EXCEPT, good ole unka sugar (and vassal states) is directly/indirectly responsible for a fuckton of shitholery on the planet…

  37. Corvinus says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    “Part of the problem is that you were so easy to colonize.”

    Invade the world, invite the world, a European creation.

  38. Corvinus says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Face it–the supermajority of Muslims mind their own business. The best policy is to keep them where they are, even if they are in “white” nations. Revoking their citizenship and deporting them are untenable positions–it would be unlawful and break legal precedence. Walling them off? Where would this money come from?

  39. shn says:

    “As always, Cockburn is very good on pointing out other people’s wilful blindness to reality, whilst ignoring his own complete refusal, for ideological reasons, to come to terms with mass immigration as the major contributor to societal discord and intercommunal violence, including terrorism.”

    As always, conservatives ignore the REASONS behind mass emigration from the region and the UK’s & US’ role in causing it.

    • Replies: @Randal
  40. Malla says:

    This is all because of the invade the world, invite the world policy of the elites. It is very important to read this book about Semitic treachery

    In Page 315, we read “Marcelino Menendez Pelayo, the renowned Spanish historian of the previous century, writes concerning the treachery of the Jews: “The indigenous population would have been able to show resistance to the handful of Arabs who crossed the Straits, but Witiza had disarmed them, levelled the towers to the ground and had the lances turned into harrows.”125 While the Visigoth kingdom disarmed under the influence of the Jewish advisors and friends of Witiza, dismantled its defence and destroyed its war power, the Jews encouraged the Musulmans to fall upon the Christian kingdom and to destroy it. Great preparations were made in North Africa for this. Into the land which the Jews wished to destroy they introduced pacifism, and into the land which should serve them as a tool to destroy the other, a warlike spirit. These classical tactics the Jews have applied in the course of centuries in different states and use them today with a perfection, in which they have attained experience in the course of centuries. It is worthy of note that at the present time the Jews preach – directly or with the help of freemasonic or theosophical organisations, Socialist and Communist parties, secret infiltration in different Christian churches, press, radio, and television controlled by them – Pacifism and disarmament in the free world, while in the Soviet Union and the other states under the totalitarian dictatorship they incite the peoples to war. While towards the end of the last war the USA and England disarmed in a dangerous way, they handed over to Communism vitally important positions, simultaneously destroyed the basic defense of these two great powers, and even traitorously betrayed to the Soviet Union and other Communist lands armed to the teeth the very weapons which they had stolen from the other countries. The “Fifth Column” has controlled the governments in Washington including atomic and rocket secrets. The tactics are fundamentally the same as twelve hundred years ago.”

  41. Malla says:

    Muslims have been used by Zionists for centuries to attain their aims
    Besides, Islam itself was started by the ancestors of the Zionists to use Arabs as a tool to destroy the Persian and Byzantine Empires. The Persian Empire which saved the Jews from Babylon, the same Persian Empire the Zionists themselves controlled, the same Persian Empire where the Zionists of that time killed the Persian nationalist Haman and his sons.

    Of course Islam, like Christianity, went out of their control and Islam became an Arab project and then a Muslim project including non Arab Muslims (Ajams)

    Also many are convinced that the Saudi royal family is Jewish

    So what I think is that Zionists are gonna destroy Europe and the West using Muslims (and blacks and others). Native Europeans are being made passive and weak full of guilt and self hate via Christian churches, media, education etc… while Muslims are allowed to enter and then are exposed to Jewish Wahabi ideology via the Jewish Saudi family.
    Similarly Zionists are supporting non Muslim organizations from through out the world including fundamentalist Hindutva organizations in India and fundamentalist Buddhist organizations in Sri Lanka for example like the BBS.
    The aim is to create civil wars throughout the World using the Zionist-Saudi, non muslim-muslim, pincer tactic. That way Israel can sell more ammo and make money. Muslims have always been the punching bags of the Zionists to be used like a swarm of barbarians to attain some Zionist objectives. ISIS for example was started in the same fashion by the CIA -Mossad-Saudi establishment. Their also rumours that the obnoxious Islamist in Britain Anjem Choudhary who enjoys riling up the native Britons over Sharia is a MI6 (Zionist) agent.
    Also worth nothing is that recently we have seen the collapse of real British nationalist groups like the BNP who target all non White people in Britain to leave Britain and the rise of selectively anti Islamic parties like the EDL who only target Muslims. This is because the BNP refused to become a whore of Zionist money and hence get controlled by them. Their refusal led to a massive campaign by the BBC and establishment to destroy the BNP. But the EDL on the hand gets much more of a free pass. A Christian Muslim civil war is planned which is good for the Zionists and Israel.

  42. Gum says: • Website

    The mass immigration you’re so scared of wouldn’ve happened if the twisted so called war on terror didn’t occur. How can you diverge the focus from the main point? All I can think is that you are just a frustrated xenophobic, and pathetic too.

    • Troll: German_reader
    • Replies: @Randal
  43. Randal says:

    The mass immigration you’re so scared of wouldn’ve happened if the twisted so called war on terror didn’t occur.

    If you were basing your comment upon reality rather than on ideological wishful thinking (or just plain ignorance) you would be aware that the vast majority of mass immigration to this country is not from the countries attacked by the US and UK and is overwhelmingly economic in motivation, and that mass immigration to this country long predates the recent spate of wars inflicted on the middle east by UK and US.

    Of course, if you bothered to investigate by looking at my comment history you would quickly find out that I’ve been a very active and vehement critic of the UK and US wars in question, for probably a lot longer than you have been (unless you are as old as I am).

    But given the well known facts on immigration and the evident absurdity of your attempt to blame it on interventionist wars, in the face of the starkly obvious conclusions that would follow from the slightest attempt at researching the phenomenon, you would be well advised to give the question of why and how you came to be so profoundly incorrect on such an important topic some careful thought. Did you mislead yourself, or were you misled, or was it a combination of the two? The answer to that question will help you to understand the world around you a lot better than all the agonised Guardian articles and BBC programmes in the world.

    How can you diverge the focus from the main point?

    The main point is the domestic terrorism and intercommunal violence in this country caused by the literally stupid, and profoundly wrongful, policies of “invade the world and invite the world” adopted by our political elites for reasons that are self-serving and certainly not in the interests of the wider nation. Cockburn (and you, evidently) seems desperate to ignore or deny the obvious truth that the immigrants and their descendants who commit this violence and the communities they are drawn from would not be here to do so were it not for mass immigration.

    All I can think is that you are just a frustrated xenophobic, and pathetic too.

    Oh sorry, are we in playground name-calling mode? In that case, you are just another ignorant, treasonous leftist troll and denier, who (if you are British or American) just hates his own nation.

    Your turn.

    • Agree: Auntie Analogue
  44. Randal says:

    As always, conservatives ignore the REASONS behind mass emigration from the region and the UK’s & US’ role in causing it.

    See the reply to Gum above.

  45. completely agree hank.reading today the comments of roland dumas(former french foreign minister)
    on,he informed french tv viewers that britain was preparing terrorists to attack
    syria two years before the outbreak of hostilities.what we need to know, who in government circles
    planned and carried it out.

  46. @Randal

    What are “US sphere countries”?

  47. Randal says:

    What are “US sphere countries”?

    The term is self-explanatory. Countries that are part of the US’s sphere of influence, where the US in practice controls what happens on the macro scale – most of Europe, North America, the US’s Pacific and Middle East protectorates etc.

    In this case it’s used casually in a rather more restrictive sense to cover the North American and European parts of the US sphere, leaving out the less civilised ME states (Saudi, Israel etc) and the more exotic Pacific ones (South Korea, Japan).

  48. @Diversity Heretic

    President Aquilino Pimentel Jr. described the Abu Sayyaf (“Bearer [or Father] of the Sword” in Arabic) as a “CIA monster.”

    Wherever there is trouble in the neighborhood, the CIA would rather have created it or would exploit it to the hilt.

    Like Chechnya which always had ambitions to free itself from Russia right from the day it was conquered. However before the first Chechen war, it was almost dead and mostly forgotten. Then the Saudi Wahabis and the CIA jumped on and rekindled it. Thankfully Putin won the war and the peace so much so that there are many Chechen brigades kicking some good “moderate rebel” ass that is causing anathema to the US and their “allies” in Saudi Arabia and Israel

  49. Misses most of the main points. Why was that Syrian child even in the country?

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr