UkFeatureLondonGlasgowTerror

Table of content :

Version 3

United against (the real) terrorism

Author: Some UK IMCers

Abstract:

On 7 July, 2007, following the failed attack on Glasgow Airport, some 2,000 people gathered in Glasgow to protest against the war of terror at a Scotland United Against Terror rally, which was called by a few young folks from the the Muslim community and was quickly backed by the city's mosques and Islamic organisations. Speakers ranged from religious and union leaders, Stop the War Coalition, to police and government representatives [ report ].

Meanwhile, four men convicted of the 21/7 bomb plot in London have been jailed for life, while four other were sentenced each to 6 years in prison for 'inciting terrorism' following the Muhammad cartoons protest in London last year. At the same time, a second jury in the trial of two BNP 'non-terrorists' accused of plotting explosions has 'failed to reach a verdict'. The police, meanwhile, continue to use a considerable chunk of their resources to monitor activists.

Related posts on the newswire: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | Latuff Cartoons: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |

Content:

Whose bombs?

While the mainstream and corporate media's frenzy was, as usual, filled with Islamphobia and demonisation of Muslims, with 'terror fear level' raised to critical, and while the new prime minister Gordon Brown continued with further attacks on civil liberties, some more critical writers tried to ask the more difficult questions.

The initial reaction to the failed 'car bombs' in London from Craig Murray was "cui bono?" (who benefits?) Nafeez Ahmed, who has written extensively on Al-Qaeda and their links to the West, the history of international terrorism and the strategy of tension, asked "whose bombs?", whilst John Pilger said "these are Brown's bombs."

It is worth mentioning that Nafeez Ahmed's above-mentioned article was radically different from his piece that appeared in The Independent on Sunday (see also his recent London talk).

Version 2: United Against Terrorism

375737.jpg The initial reaction to the failed car 'bombs' in London from Craig Murray was 'cui bono?' — who benefits? The mainstream media reacted in the usual way with islamphobia and demonisation of muslims, Brown continues with further attacks on civil liberties, and the European Commission wants to suppress internet bomb-making guides. The terror fear level was raised to critical and the police continued to use considerable resources to monitor activists. Two thousand protested against the war of terror at a Scotland United Against Terrorism rally in Glasgow which was addressed by trade union, religious and community leaders in addition to the police(!), the government and the Stop the War Coalition.

According to John Pilger 'these are Brown's bombs' whereas Nafeez Ahmed, who has written extensively on Al-Qaeda and their links to the west, the history of international terrorism and the strategy of tension and who's writings are recommended by CAMPACC and 911 Cult Watch, asks the question 'whose bombs?'. This is an article which is radically different from his piece for The Independent, widening the net lets the bombers slip through and his views were further elaborated at a meeting in London, creating terror - a lateral view on 911, 7/7 and the war on terror [this link to the meeting announcement should be replaced with a audio link when it's up].

Articles: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | Latuff Cartoons: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |

Version 1: London and Glasgow: Brown's 'Bombs'?

375401.jpg The initial reaction to the failed car 'bombs' [1] in London from Craig Murray was cui bono? [2] — who benefits? The mainstream media reacted in the usual way [3], Brown continues with further attacks on civil liberties [4], and the European Commission wants to suppress internet bomb-making guides [5]. Nafeez Ahmed asks whose bombs? [6] and John Pilger says these are Brown's bombs, too [7]. What is clear is that the imperial genocide perpetrated by the Empire [8], which by last year had resulted in at least 600,000 dead [9] in Iraq and has caused between 20 and 30 million deaths [10] since World War II is of no comparision to the botched attacks in the UK — it's business as usual for the Military Industrial Complex [11] and the 'War on Terror' [12].

  1. https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/374985.html
  2. https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/374688.html
  3. https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/374997.html
  4. https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/375231.html
  5. https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/375226.html
  6. https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/375302.html
  7. https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/375344.html
  8. https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/03/364938.html
  9. https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/353252.html
  10. https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/371890.html
  11. https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/12/283068.html
  12. https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/topics/terror/
    • UK IMC's Terror War topic

Sources

* The Register

* Craig Murray

* Islamophobia Watch

* Nafeez Ahmed

* John Pilger

* Dr John Marciano

* The Lancet

* Counter Currents

* Manuel Valenzuela

Feature Process

This feature has perhaps been the most contraversial feature that there has ever been on UK Indymedia, based on the huge number of emails it generated in July 2007, following is an attempt to summarises the discussion.

The feature article above was proposed at 01:47 on Saturday morning, 7th July 2007. The only response to it before it was published was from Maqui at 19:02 the same day, about 17 hours after it was proposed, "I think it is a legitimate feature, and I would support it to go up in the front page".

In supporting the feature Maqui added, "My concern though, is that this feature is prone to provoke a storm of comments", and to this Paul replied, "In these stormy times a "storm of comments" ought to be most welcome, shouldn't it?" Ana replied to this, "Indymedia is "not" a discussion forum, it is supposed to be a "news site". If we ever needed any "evidence of life out there" that would be in the forms of reports of actions or reports of corporate and government misbehaviour that you do not find in the mainstream media. Not a storm of rants.".

It was published at 21:33 on Sunday 8th July, around 40 hours after it was first notified to the list and around 33 hours after the only pre-publication email about it was sent.

At 22:13 on Sunday 8th July, 45 minutes after it was published, Guy asked "Who proposed this?", then at 00:13 on 9th July he answered his own question, "it was Chris that put this in the centre column" and he promised "More later".

Paul, responded to the publication with, "Congratulations on putting this in the middle column. Though it doesn't go as far as I'd like, it certainly shows Indymedia showing some balls."

At 00:24 on Monday 9th July Zak point out that the feature was "well over the accepted 24 hours without any objections", Guy then indicated that he was confused by 24 hour clock notation — he thought the feature was proposed "on a Saturday afternoon" when it was in fact proposed on Friday night (early Saturday morning). Even if it had been proposed 12 hours later than it was it would still have been proposed for over 30 hours before being published, ftp added, "there were 2 whole days in which objections could be raised". Wietse added, "this feature was proposed well within the 24hr time frame". Genny responded to Guys concern that the 24 hour rule should only apply on week days with the suggestion "If giving notice to post features over a weekend is a problem, then I guess that it's important to make this clear in guidelines somewhere."

Topic revision: r17 - 20 Jul 2007 - 16:22:50 - ShiaR
 
This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright &© by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Foswiki? Send feedback