The liberals of the Guardian are in arms defending "democracy" and "liberties" against the state reaction. Simon Jenkins, for example, is right that deployment of tanks and soldiers will not prevent "terrorism", but he is, like most of the liberals, not to speak of the right-wing media in general, fails, intentionally or unintentionally, to tackle the real sources of acts of violence like the one which took place in Manchester a couple of days ago.
Jenkins: "Terror bombing is the one foolproof weapon of the weak against the strong. We cannot screen every public space or search every pedestrian. There is nothing new to this. The car bomb and the terror grenade are as old as Conrad’s secret agent, and his “pestilence” which stalks the street with death in its pocket."
Agreed.
Jenkins: "All we can hope to do is enter into the minds of the bombers and their associates to prevent them at source. That is essentially a covert activity, and is clearly in its infancy. We can try to clean the pool in which fanaticism swims, the ideological grooming and conditioning. The security services must relentlessly infiltrate Islamist networks. That is their job – they claim to foil a dozen attacks a year – but publicising it cannot be necessary."
A bankrupt idea/strategy It has been tried already, but their advocate choose, for blind ideological reasons, to continue advocating it.
Jenkins: "Today’s terrorist wants to frighten the enemies of Islam into curbing liberties and oppressing Muslims."
Wow! That's even worse. Another failure, probably deliberate, to identify the sources of "terrorism". This narrow-minded people should also be held responsible for propagating false, harmful ideas. They choose to be impaired intellectually, for they ignore striking evidence published by their fellow liberal researchers.
Jenkins is even suggesting working with "the Muslim leaders" in the UK! Which leaders? Those who allied themselves with the state in the invasion of Iraq, for example! Jenkins is also naive in thinking that "Muslim leaders" have complete control over Muslims. They have never had and they will never have such a control.
Jenkins: "Terror bombing is the one foolproof weapon of the weak against the strong. We cannot screen every public space or search every pedestrian. There is nothing new to this. The car bomb and the terror grenade are as old as Conrad’s secret agent, and his “pestilence” which stalks the street with death in its pocket."
Agreed.
Jenkins: "All we can hope to do is enter into the minds of the bombers and their associates to prevent them at source. That is essentially a covert activity, and is clearly in its infancy. We can try to clean the pool in which fanaticism swims, the ideological grooming and conditioning. The security services must relentlessly infiltrate Islamist networks. That is their job – they claim to foil a dozen attacks a year – but publicising it cannot be necessary."
A bankrupt idea/strategy It has been tried already, but their advocate choose, for blind ideological reasons, to continue advocating it.
Jenkins: "Today’s terrorist wants to frighten the enemies of Islam into curbing liberties and oppressing Muslims."
Wow! That's even worse. Another failure, probably deliberate, to identify the sources of "terrorism". This narrow-minded people should also be held responsible for propagating false, harmful ideas. They choose to be impaired intellectually, for they ignore striking evidence published by their fellow liberal researchers.
Jenkins is even suggesting working with "the Muslim leaders" in the UK! Which leaders? Those who allied themselves with the state in the invasion of Iraq, for example! Jenkins is also naive in thinking that "Muslim leaders" have complete control over Muslims. They have never had and they will never have such a control.
Comments