One day after the fifth anniversary of the London bombings, which took place on 7/7 2005, there appeared a typical article on MSN News UK, which completely encapsulates a society totally in submission to the threat of terrorism.
In a perverted display of logic and a grotesquely offensive article to the victims of the attacks, not only is the main story (that of no official commemoration of the attacks) relegated some way down the page, but the first mention of any victim is not the victims themselves, not even real victims, but imaginary victims: the Muslim community.
The MSN article quotes several newspapers and blogs relating to Muslim grievances over that day, whom, in the aftermath of 7/7 feel "stigmatised en masse" by the media and government policy; or other sections of the Muslim community who went on to sense the country they were living in as "holding on to its self-control, determined not to surrender to base instincts" or in a pre-emptive show of sympathy for those Muslims not yet targeted by extremists (but you never know, it's never too late) '...how 7 July was the day "that changed UK Muslims' lives'".
These opinions might carry more weight if it weren't for the fact that they are contradicted elsewhere in the same article - by complaining of a lack of an official commemoration ceremony to the real victims - such is the level of the British establishment's fear in causing offence to the Muslim community.
Terrorism works.
The repeated surveys over the years by the FBI consistently show that far from Muslims suffering continued physical assaults, intimidation and oppression, are in fact one of the lowest victim groups (with Jews, blacks and even Christians in America surpassing the Muslim community). There are so few attacks on the Muslim community, it seems some are even resorting to inventing stories of such incidents.
The reassuring reality is that in the aftermath of the 7/7 terror attacks - the largest terrorist attacks in England's 1000 year-long history - there was no backlash against the Muslim community, there were no mass lynchings of Muslims, there wasn't even one. So why are media outlets repeating false claims of victimisation based on propaganda, which are disproved with a few seconds research on Google?
Fear.
Paraphrasing from Caroline Glick's book Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad
, she states that:"When terrorists carry out attacks, they gain the attention of their victim society. After a campaign of terror, the victim society begins to feel undermined and insecure; it becomes clear to them that their governments cannot guarantee the victim society's safety, thus they become more receptive to the terrorist's message in a bid to understand, and in a bid to find a possible end to the terror. It is at this point that the terrorists are free to name any grievance they so choose..."
In the case of the IRA, the message was simple; Northern Ireland. In the case of ETA, it was the northern region of Spain. So what do the Muslim fundamentalists want?
If we're to believe the long, rambling speeches in the videos of the suicide bombers, the terrorist actions of 7/7 were a reaction to non-Muslims attacking Muslims in Muslim lands. In other words, British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the British (or anyone else) to attempt an evacuation of the battlefield is something which is not only implausible, it is unjustified since it was the West that was attacked on 9/11.
Yet this is the moral reasoning the British, and Western, public at large are being expected to believe. Simply put, the terrorists want surrender.
What is happening is a multi-pronged assault; a seemingly water-tight psychological tactic from which there is little chance of escape. The easiest and quickest way to end the pain, Westerners are subliminally told, is to 'listen' to the terrorists, to 'talk' because violence (or rather war) doesn't achieve anything.
We're constantly told that most Muslims aren't terrorists. But this depends how you define terrorism. Is a terrorist just another word for a criminal? As discussed above, terrorism is a psychological tactic. But what about aiding and abetting criminals, or providing a safe-haven for them? Or even speaking out against terrorists and their desire to destroy the West? As Mark Steyn quite rightly says, although most Muslims aren't terrorists, they still share the same goals: to live under Shariah law, wherever they are in the world. When viewed from this perspective, we see that indeed, not all Muslims are terrorists, but Muslims opposing extreme views are in fact a tiny minority of the worldwide Muslim community. Anyone having talked to Muslims at protests, those engaging in BDS activism, or on a university campus, will tell you how hard it is to find a mythical 'moderate' Muslim.
Thus we see that, rather than extremists and the majority Muslim community being separate entities, they are two sides of the same coin. Coordinating their efforts, not through an agreed upon census, but simply through following the dictates
of their religion. They sensitise their victim societies and succeed in intimidation through violence and further manipulation through accusations of 'Islamophobia', to achieve their goal of the submission of the victim society. In Arabic, submission means Islam.
