Archive for July, 2005
The only advice I can give at this time is: Avoid this country if possible. Or you risk to receive police bullets into your head. Don’t be coloured, don’t wear a back-pack, don’t wear a bulky jacket. Because that’s what terrorists do. And these days every terrorist is a suicide-attacker. That’s why the police shoot you in the head. They will find, afterwards, that you’re perfectly innocent. Another chance for them to be “desperately sorry”. Once again: Keep out of here if you can. Legal murder comes as plainclothes police rambos these days in the UK.
By the way, can anybody tell me: which other country prides itself of ordinary policemen not carrying firearms and at the same time having the worst rate of shooting innocent people?
Yahoo and indymedia report that even the driver of the tube train where the shooting took place was almost gunned down by the Met.
UK ministers reject Iraq terror link: “Senior cabinet minister reject claims that Britain’s support of the invasion of Iraq put the UK more at risk from terrorist attack.” (Via BBC News.)
They most probably also deny all the other conclusions from the latest Chatham report on terrorism and the UK:
- the UK government’s position as ‘pillion passenger’ to the United States’ war on terror
- Islamic terrorist activity was not given appropriate priority until the late 1990s
- the UK is at particular risk because it is the closest ally of the US, deploying troops in the campaigns against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq
That leaves us to wonder whether said UK “senior” ministers are senior enough to embrace the report’s recommendations to “move away from the rigid forensic approach to professional post-terror attack responses”, i.e. to place more emphasis “on
building and using community resources in responding to terrorism, rather than
focusing on technical and professional approaches that leave communities excluded” and not to allow that “terrorism and the shadow of fear it casts can be used all too easily to obscure repressive government measures”, particularly during elections.
(1) cannot be which be may not
According to BBC News, the Lord Chancellor when talking about the new terror laws said that people ‘attacking the values of the West’ would be imprisoned for ‘long periods’.
Would be interesting to know, what the Lord Chancellor and this whole British government mean by “values of the West”. On an almost daily basis we recognise manifestations of these “values of the West”, such as privatisation of the commons, protection of globalised corporatism, a democracy of the white male upper-class where minorities are denied their democratic rights, and the not so subtle brainwash of consumerism to name only a few (and not to forget Britain’s “right” for a rebate on EU contributions and the millions of taxpayers’ money spent for the royals).
If that’s the “values of the West” I’d rather be somewhere else … soon!
(Via BBC News.)
