Uponnothing.co.uk

So, MI5 have decided that it is now safe to downgrade the ‘terror threat’ to UK businesses. Well thank goodness for that, I guess it must be down to the reduction of terrorist activity in the UK since 2001, but wait, what reduction? Since 2001 there has been no terrorist attack in the UK, yet at all times we have been at a very heightened state of ‘alert’. The explanation lies, as it always does in this kind of situation, with information that the government assures us that it has, but that information cannot be made public.

The irony since 2001 and the 9/11 is that the UK government has stepped up its own terror campaigns around the world, most notably in support for American outrages. This tends to highlight the complete falsity of government claims that they have intelligence of terrorist activity significant enough to have UK businesses exist in a state of constant alert towards terrorism. The logic of the argument here is simple. The intelligence has now deemed it fit to lower the state of alert - albeit only from ’severe general’ (whatever that means) to ’substantial’ - when surely intelligence should reflect on the fact that Tony Blair’s illegal war on Iraq, coupled with his complete obedience and support for George Bush should have heightened threats, not reduced them. As reported in the Guardian, Malaysia’s Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has realised that in order to avoid Malaysia becoming a terrorist target it was essential not to be associated with the US. ‘We are doing everyone a favour by not having the Americans here. They are a lightning rod. They attract terrorists.’ Perhaps Tony Blair should think about the validity of that statement very carefully.

9/11 could be vilified as an unjustified random act of terror – ignoring its targets, and the reality that America is global super-terrorist – but any new attacks will be a response to our terror, and will be far harder to vilify in the way that 9/11 was. I’m sure if I was an Iraqi and had just witnessed my family shot dead at a checkpoint, or blown up by a ‘shock and awe’ display (the only time weapons of mass destruction were seen in Iraq), then I’d want Tony Blair to experience the reality of his policies with retaliation.

However, the difficulty is that how would that poor man differentiate between the actions of Tony Blair, and the actions of the UK public. Would he copy the response of the UK and America after 9/11 and use his pain to justify attacking anyone he wishes - as his suffering is so great that surely any white person is to blame. Or would he distinguish between the UK government and the UK public, as if he did he could justifiably bomb Tony Blair, responding - as set out in the UN charter - to a direct attack on his own country. Reality dictates that the sheer logistics involved in carrying out an attack on those deserve it, such as George Bush and Tony Blair, make it likely that the man (or woman) would face two choices: accept it as impossible and do nothing, or instead instigate a random attack on any white person they suspect of belonging to the UK or US.

Either way Tony Blair and George Bush are bringing problems, to other nations, or to the populations of their own nations. What is certain is that the terror alerts have previously formed part of the propaganda campaign by Tony Blair to allow him full powers in the war on terror by forcing agreement through fear. This myth has enabled him to wage illegal wars, pass legislation reducing the liberties of the British public, and above all bring the media even further into line by appealing to them to respect a national threat. It remains for the general public - as ever - to bare the brunt of future generations of ‘terrorists’ whose first memories in life are their parents slaughtered by the western rogue states. It may not be happening yet, but a new generation are being moulded on the bloody streets of Iraq and occupation will always bring violent resistance.