Stop making excuses for Islamist terror

Jeremy Corbyn’s London Bridge comments were stupid and shameful.

Brendan O'Neill

Brendan O'Neill
Editor

Share
Topics Politics UK

Jeremy Corbyn can’t help himself. He sees an Islamist terror attack and his first instinct is to politicise it, to give it some gravitas, to reimagine it as some kind of anti-imperialist act. And he’s done it again with the London Bridge atrocity.

Just 48 hours after Usman Khan carried out his grisly, ISIS-inspired stabbing attack, Corbyn was linking it with the ‘war on terror’. In a speech yesterday he said the assault was wrong and wicked etc, etc, but it is also partly our fault, apparently. It happened because of our interventions overseas. By invading Iraq and Libya we helped to nurture a culture of bitterness and hatred that inflamed terrorism in the West, he said. This is excuse-making for Islamist terror, plain and simple.

Of course Corbyn was careful to add caveats in his speech. He said he wasn’t aiming to ‘absolve’ terrorists of responsibility for what they do. But that is exactly what he’s doing. When he says, in the Observer’s summary, that the wars in Iraq and other Muslim countries have ‘radicalised’ young Muslims in the West, he is diminishing the responsibility of the Islamist terrorist himself and shifting the blame on to Western officials.

When he says, in the context of London Bridge and other recent Islamist attacks, that we are ‘living with the consequences’ of ‘Britain’s repeated military interventions’ overseas, and particularly of the ‘invasion and occupation of Iraq’, he is depicting ISIS-style terror in the West as a ‘consequence’ of decisions taken by the British Army and other military forces. It is, to use woke lingo Corbynistas will be familiar with, a species of victim-blaming.

Worse, Corbyn is using a terrorist, in this case the dead terrorist Usman Khan, as a kind of ventriloquist’s dummy to repeat his own criticisms of the Iraq War. We have no idea if Khan felt strongly about the Iraq War in particular. And that’s leaving aside the fact that it doesn’t matter one iota if he did feel strongly about the Iraq War. Still, Corbyn ventriloquises through Islamist barbarism, using this terrorist act as a kind of amplifier of his own political views. And in the process he does something unforgivable: he adds gravitas to these dreadful acts of religious hatred and intolerance.

This isn’t the first time Corbyn and others of his leftish persuasion have done this. They pinned the 7/7 bombings on the Iraq War. They mentioned the ‘war on terror’ in the aftermath of the spate of terror attacks in the UK in 2017. There is a serious political, historical and geographical illiteracy to these claims, to this idea that Islamist terrorism is a response, however warped, to Western militarism.

It is ahistorical: the worst terror assault – 9/11 – predated the most recent round of bloody wars in the Middle East. It overlooks the fact that countries whose governments played no significant role in the Iraq War, including Sweden and Germany, have experienced Islamist terrorism. And it is politically degraded. It speaks to the degradation of the once noble cause of anti-imperialism that Corbyn and his Stop the War Coalition must now desperately politicise the most misanthropic, hysterical, barbaric forms of violence in an effort to accentuate their belief that the war in Iraq was a really bad thing.

Try to imagine a politician doing something like this with far-right terrorism. Imagine if, after the neo-fascistic slaughter carried out by Anders Breivik in Norway in 2011, a politician had said: ‘Look, I’m not excusing what he did. But I did warn you that pursuing left-wing policies would make some people angry. So from now on, the government must stop pursuing left-wing policies.’ Or imagine if after the racist terrorism at two mosques in Christchurch a politician had said: ‘This violence is inexcusable. But I did warn you that letting Muslims into the country would make people angry. I told you so.’

There would have been uproar. In fact, there was: an Australian politician actually said something very similar to that in the wake of Christchurch and he was rightly condemned across the world. He was slammed for drawing out and giving credence to the Christchurch killer’s own warped political beliefs. But isn’t that what Corbyn does with Islamist terrorism? Doesn’t he, too, draw out and amplify what he considers to be the political point to these atrocities? And doesn’t he effectively grant the terrorists a veto over government policy when he effectively says that unless we stop interfering overseas, there will be more slaughter like this?

That is one of the most distasteful things about Corbyn and other degraded leftists’ echoing of what they presume to be the political message of Islamist atrocities – they give these religious hysterics a veto over policy. Many of us are angry about many things. I’m angry about Western interventionism, including the meddling in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Some people are angry about mass immigration. Others are angry about Tory cuts. But no one should have a violent veto over these issues. Government should not change its policy on immigration, austerity or war on the basis that some people will plant a bomb if it doesn’t. That is terroristic blackmail. And terroristic blackmail is a game that Corbyn, perhaps unwittingly, is playing.

The foolish reading of (twisted) anti-imperialism into Islamist attacks also shows the extent to which identity politics has hijacked the contemporary left. The degraded left’s explanation for Islamist atrocities springs from its belief that Muslims are a uniquely victimised community, both internationally and domestically, and therefore it makes sense that they should lash out in a violent way.

There is an ironically racist element here. The notion that Muslims cannot help themselves, that they are passively ‘radicalised’ by foreign developments and turned into furious creatures who must let off bombs, is motored by an orientalist view of the Muslim community as lacking in agency, as less capable than others of controlling their response to world events. A white Christian could be very angry indeed about the war in Iraq; I’m sure many of them were. But would the degraded left imply that it was understandable if a white Christian stabbed people to death ostensibly in protest against that war? Of course not. But they view Muslims not only as the West’s greatest victims, but, correspondingly, as its most hapless, impulsive community, too. These arguments reveal the paternalistic undertones to the pitying identitarian worldview.

The Iraq War was a disaster. The interventions in Libya and Syria were awful, too. These were immoral ventures lacking in geopolitical coherence. If you want to argue against them, argue against them. Don’t cynically use Islamist terrorism to make your point. This new terror is not driven by any kind of analysis or passion regarding Western militarism overseas – it is driven by a disturbingly intolerant and hateful nihilism that views the West and its inhabitants as evil. To witness such terror and chalk it up to anti-imperialism is stupid and shameful.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

Picture by: Getty.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

John Millson

3rd December 2019 at 8:40 am

Obviously like all terrorism, violent Islamism is linked to actual social, economic political grievance. (Bin Laden was inspiring acts since the 1990s – Afghanistan, Bosnia etc. – the Twin Towers was part of that ‘campaign’.)
Yes, Corbyn takes it to the extreme to make political points, but however insane these acts are there are many people, fellow Muslims, who condone it or more likely, dare not speak against it. As we all know because martyrdom/religious sudicide appears not be taboo in some interpretations of Islam, this form of terrorism is particularly devastating.
We don’t have cower before terrorists but we at least have to look at the causes rationally and work to engage with non-violent elements in those societies, to remove any basis for the ‘justification’ of the ‘operatives’ deranged acts.

Cedar Grove

7th December 2019 at 11:57 am

The war on Iraq, and its shambolic “reconstruction” certainly provided cause for genuine grievance, as has the more recent chaotic war in Syria. If loved ones have been killed by some remote war-plane, it’s understandable that some might take the opportunity of retaliation.

But the point is that organised Islamic leaders make use of any grievance, justified or not, in order to lead individuals into believing that following them into making war in the kufr is the only possible course of action. The absence of a legitimate source of grievance wouldn’t obviate Islamic terrorism, which has its own energy and purpose.

But the point is that

Brandy Cluster

3rd December 2019 at 12:11 am

In today’s “The Australian” newspaper (3/12) the editorial describes Jeremy Corbyn as “a useful idiot”. I think they’ve nailed it.

Jonnie Henly

2nd December 2019 at 11:04 pm

Further to the point about the left’s reaction to Christian terrorism, remind me how they reacted to Christian terrorists in Ireland?

I seem to recall they treated them the same as they did Muslims in the Middle East.

“But would the degraded left imply that it was understandable if a white Christian stabbed people to death ostensibly in protest against that war”

That’s pretty much exactly the line taken by some leftists with regards to the IRA – that it was an inevitable reaction to British troops in Ireland.

Brendan is, as usual, talking rubbish.

Coram Deo

2nd December 2019 at 10:42 pm

Bring back the death penalty.
‘Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man’ Genesis 9:6

John Millson

3rd December 2019 at 8:51 am

Terrorist.

Anders k

2nd December 2019 at 10:32 pm

“it is ahistorical: the worst terror assault – 9/11 – predated the most recent round of bloody wars in the Middle East”

Didn’t bin laden create al qaeda after the first gulf war because the US stationed bases on holy land in the Arabian peninsula from which they attacked Iraq ?

Jonnie Henly

2nd December 2019 at 10:23 pm

“But would the degraded left imply that it was understandable if a white Christian stabbed people to death ostensibly in protest against that war?”

Perhaps not. But many members of the left, and probably the right as well, would agree that such actions from Christians would be mich more understandable if a Christian country had been forcibly invaded on a false pretext by a non Christian nation.

Which makes Brendan’s claims about the left viewing Muslims as “less capable than others of controlling their response to world events.” false, since he has not offered a fair comparison.

How would Christians react if, say, the US had been invaded by Iran, unlikely as that may be.

Probably in a similar way to how Muslims in the middle East reacted to Iraq.

Brendan’s claims about the left’s “racist” views of Muslims are false.

Keith Lloyd

2nd December 2019 at 9:41 pm

The answer lies within Islam. My father and his brothers would not have fought WW2 if they had known the outcome 75 years later. But no one in government listened to them. It is tragic that successive governments allowed Islam to take root in ‘our’ lands as a result of mass immigration. But it has…and we are paying the price. During the first Iraq war I invited Corbyn to speak at an anti-war meeting in Ipswich because he was almost alone amongst Labour MPs to oppose it. How I regret that now.

Jon Hubbard

2nd December 2019 at 9:18 pm

The cause of these attacks is quite clearly untreated mental illness, the reason the perpertrators are not treated is that their delusions are considered to be a religious ideology.
Its time to open the can of worms,

antoni orgill

2nd December 2019 at 8:35 pm

Careful, Brendan. The ice your skating on is thin as can be. You’re accusing Corbyn of rationalising this atrocity by ‘political’ means? Those ARE your words _ paraphrased. So, now you do the same by other words. Corbyn gave an historical context to the analysis with the intention of offering a statesman-like neutrality. So, he’s Chamberlain for the 21st Century World War III. But, you’re no Churchill … build bridges, Brendan. Form alliances. Power won’t come unless you fucking fight with every fibre of your being and organise your own politics directly.

David Wolcott

2nd December 2019 at 7:29 pm

I feel obliged to point out a few things that always get forgotten, or are unknown, in the UK. First, the “Christchurch gunman” was an Australian, who had been converted to a garbled far-left environmentalist view that there are too many people on the planet, and that Muslims are responsible for “the Great Replacement”. He came to these views on a trip to Europe. It would have been useful to know more about what he was thinking, in order to counter it, but his manifesto was quickly made illegal in New Zealand and several people were charged and convicted for downloading it. For some reason many people in high positions insisted on breast beating about what the mosque attacks implied about New Zealand society, when all they really implied was that a foreigner had come here to carry out his horrendous mission because the mosques were soft targets. And if you get frustrated with your Labour opposition leader’s responses, imagine having a Labour prime minister who wore a hijab in sympathy. Ardern’s catchcry (which became a bumper sticker) was “They are us”, but she seemed to think that entailed “We are them”. There is a difference. Finally, online news here is dominated by one company, Stuff NZ, and they shut down ALL comments to ALL news items for months after the shootings, so that no-one could discuss the events, and (as well as monitoring) now pick and choose which items are allowed to be commented on. So I read Spiked.

Jonnie Henly

2nd December 2019 at 10:16 pm

“and that Muslims are responsible for “the Great Replacement”

That is very firmly a far right view, not a far left one.

Brandy Cluster

3rd December 2019 at 12:14 am

Stop with the victim blaming!!

David Wolcott

3rd December 2019 at 10:28 pm

Hence me saying it was a garbled view.

Jonnie Henly

2nd December 2019 at 6:29 pm

“It is ahistorical: the worst terror assault – 9/11 – predated the most recent round of bloody wars in the Middle East”

True. But it was carried out by a group who’s rise to power was in part aided and abetted by the West.

So Brendan’s argument falls apart there.

Iain Litenment

2nd December 2019 at 9:09 pm

I think you’re missing the point: “These were immoral ventures lacking in geopolitical coherence. If you want to argue against them, argue against them. Don’t cynically use Islamist terrorism to make your point. This new terror is not driven by any kind of analysis or passion regarding Western militarism overseas – it is driven by a disturbingly intolerant and hateful nihilism that views the West and its inhabitants as evil.”

Jonnie Henly

2nd December 2019 at 10:11 pm

What Brendan stated was incorrect. It doesn’t matter what his point was, he was wrong.

If he wants to condemn Corbyn for his comments, he should not be using historical falsehoods to do so.

Neither of course should he be using a terrorist attack to fuel his opposition to identity politics, but that is another matter.

Brandy Cluster

3rd December 2019 at 12:13 am

Bravo. You’ve nailed it. And, not forgetting, the Arab world’s jihads against Jews which include, but are not limited to, blowing up 747s, hijacking planes and kidnapping people.

STOP WITH THE VICTIM BLAMING, you apologists.

Jonnie Henly

2nd December 2019 at 6:27 pm

“he is depicting ISIS-style terror in the West as a ‘consequence’ of decisions taken by the British Army and other military forces”

The spread of ISIS was directly fuelled and abetted by the vacuum left behind by the invasion of Iraq.

Brendan can bluster and screetch all he likes, Corbyn is right. I suspect Brendan knows this but of course he let’s his infantile anti Corbyn bias stop him from admitting the truth.

Iain Litenment

2nd December 2019 at 9:23 pm

I disagree. You are conflating ISIS with “ISIS-style terror in the West “, which is nihilistic, and a death cult that has no political aims other than death to non-believers or the wrong Muslims. These terrorists do not have political aims or demands only death of themselves and as many other people as possible in the process.

Jonnie Henly

2nd December 2019 at 10:14 pm

Are you talking about ISIS or those inspired by them? The death of non believers and incorrect Muslims is a pretty clearly stated goal of ISIS.

Iain Litenment

3rd December 2019 at 7:46 am

The difference between ISIS and ISIS inspired acts like the one at London bridge is that ISIS want a caliphate and so have something to defend however much a death cult it is. The LB terrorist on the other hand is only interested in his self-destruction via the destruction of others. This is a product of a relativism that festered in academia and among other establishment institutions, and that was then embraced by a wider set of opinion formers, and that finally spread into mainstream thought. Multiculturalism is one of the results. This has led to subcultures, identity politics, and a victimhood Olympics that ends up with individuated people like this terrorist where empathy for others is completely lost. This is in contrast to those individuals who fought back showing social solidarity and a true sense of citizenship towards their fellow human beings that simply underlines their heroism. This is what I gather from spiked’s analysis showing that the problem lies in the West and I find it mightily more convincing than it is the war in Iraq that’s to blame. And it also shows that the Labour party and the wider left are inculcated if only because their lack of understanding.

Jonnie Henly

2nd December 2019 at 6:24 pm

“The notion that Muslims cannot help themselves, that they are passively ‘radicalised’ by foreign developments and turned into furious creatures who must let off bombs,”

Is one that is only held by people living inside Brendan’s head.

Iain Litenment

2nd December 2019 at 9:41 pm

Except you made the point that ISIS style terrorism in the West is “directly fuelled and abetted” by the invasion of Iraq. Cause and effect. One billiard ball hits another and moves it. All agency is lost in this argument.

Jonnie Henly

2nd December 2019 at 10:06 pm

I did not even come close to removing “all agency” from the terrorists.

Do you think there is only ever one factor at play in incidents like these?

This is a false dichotomy of the worst kind.

Iain Litenment

2nd December 2019 at 10:15 pm

You said “directly”. You haven’t offered any other cause or influence. The terrorist hasn’t offered a political programme or left a set of demands. So you don’t know what influenced him and can only offer the empty conclusion that it was the iraq war what done it.

Jonnie Henly

2nd December 2019 at 11:08 pm

I never stated there were no other causes or influences.

The reasons for the spread of radical Islamic terrorism in the Middle East are slightly more complex and varied than one billiard ball hitting the other.

I also never claimed the Iraq War influenced this particular terrorist atrocity.

James Knight

2nd December 2019 at 6:08 pm

I was against the Iraq war like Corbyn and many others.

But here’s the thing: I wasn’t against it because it might make us less safe or might lead to incidents like this. And if it was the right thing to do, it seems cowardly not to go to war because of that risk. Or maybe I am wrong. Is the only “just war” these days one fought in the name of Health and Safety?

Neil Young

2nd December 2019 at 7:51 pm

Why were you against it? Surely risk – whether that it was based on lies, that British soldiers would die for no reason, or that it might make things worse for Iraqis and or Brits, are perfectly good reasons. What other than risk would be a bad reason?

Miles Plastic

2nd December 2019 at 5:56 pm

Corbyn and the left hate the west. That’s what’s behind all these ‘we had it coming to us’ narratives. They’re the same with the USA supporting israel, they hate America but love the Palestinians.

michael savell

2nd December 2019 at 5:23 pm

I slam,in the form of Imams were preaching to muslims years before the north african migration began.At the time it was reported that 40million migrants would soon be on their way to the west.
The Imams told the would be migrants to occupy all western lands and impregnate our women.
Why is it then that our security services acted like they knew nothing when the migration started in earnest.The answers do not bear thinking about.

James Knight

2nd December 2019 at 6:00 pm

Yes lots. But I found the Independent routinely censored so many comments it is hardly seems worth bothering.

Alex Ander

2nd December 2019 at 6:08 pm

Yes – stop perpetuating the political blame game and starting thinking of the victims families being affected by all of this..

Ardy Fardy

2nd December 2019 at 9:46 pm

Alex ander: Too late for that mate. Prevention is worth more than a thousand well-meant messages.

William Murphy

2nd December 2019 at 7:22 pm

Yes, the poor nutter desperately needed help with deradicalisation, but our evil government wouldn’t provide the cash. It reminds me of that poor grotesquely obese guy years ago who was blaming the NHS for not helping him to stop stuffing his face. I loved his solicitor’s excuse: ” Mr Sharif suggested extremists may have targeted Khan to be “regroomed” after his release from jail last December”. As Brendan says, it implies that these people lack any agency or responsibility – it all depends on which deradicaliser or extremist gets there first to control his brain.

Neil Young

2nd December 2019 at 7:54 pm

I think the point is not that he needed help, but that investment in prison and probation could’ve prevented this, but Boris didn’t listen.

Jerry Owen

3rd December 2019 at 8:51 am

Neil Young
Your post is utter drivel.

George Haworth

2nd December 2019 at 2:57 pm

I remember hearing about an article in Dabiq (the ISIS propaganda magazine) specifically dismantling the idea that Islamists hate the west due to western military intervention. The article they really went out of its way to make the point that ISIS hate the west due to the fact that it is inhabited by decadent infidels (in their eyes) and the idea that this is a response to western military intervention really seemed to grate and annoy ISIS. So actually; keep it up Jezza, you’re actually getting under the skin of the people you kneel before and make excuses for.

Jonnie Henly

2nd December 2019 at 6:08 pm

ISIS would not have become nearly as powerful as they did were it not for western intervention in Iraq.

That is undebarabls, however much it may annoy some.

Filbert Flange

2nd December 2019 at 2:43 pm

For the past several months I have been struggling for a pithy term that accurately describes the political vehicle formerly known as the left. Degraded is indeed profoundly apt. I am most grateful.

Ed Turnbull

2nd December 2019 at 2:30 pm

Does Corbyn really believe the latest terrorist attack is the consequence of western military meddling in the Middle East? I doubt it, it’s just a cynical opportunity for political point scoring and dog whistling to a certain community whose votes he hopes to hoover up.

The real cause of the latest atrocity has been around for nigh on fourteen centuries: islam itself. Anyone who claims this belief system – which mandates terror and death or subjugation for non-believers – is a ‘religion of peace’ is either ignorant of its tenets or mendacious. There’s no middle ground on this.

Peaceful verses in the Koran? Yes, abrogated by the later, violent, Medinan verses. Violence in the Torah and the Gospels? Yes, *descriptive* not *prescriptive*; the Judeo-Christian texts contain nothing like the open-ended commands for violence against unbelievers that you find in Islamic scriptures. The Crusades? A *reaction* against four centuries of Islamic aggression and conquest. The Inquisition? An episode arising from Roman church politics, not supported or sanctioned by anything in the Gospels. In short, expect there to be a flood of whataboutery and logical fallacies (the attacker wasn’t a ‘real’ muslim – the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy) to exculpate islam from its foundational role in this and all the other terrorist atrocities we’ve seen.

Jim Lawrie

2nd December 2019 at 5:32 pm

“Islamic fundamentalism is based on the fundamentals of Islam.”

Major Bonkers

2nd December 2019 at 2:12 pm

I can’t help thinking that the Koran and cannabis, taken together, lead to these sort of outrages.

Liz Davison

2nd December 2019 at 4:39 pm

Agree. Peter Hitchens is convinced that most lone-wolf attacks are fueled by cannabis-addiction creating paranoia.

Mike Ellwood

2nd December 2019 at 2:10 pm

No one here going to suggest that there was something mighty fishy about this attack being staged at a critical point in the election campaign, and that there was nothing strange about a man who’d just been completely disarmed being shot dead (and conveniently, unavailable for questioning)? Are you going to leave all this to off-guardian?

Must say, Spiked has been sounding more and more like The Daily Mail just lately. It’s puzzling, and worrying.

Ronald Bentley

2nd December 2019 at 9:09 pm

Mike, you have overlooked the fact that the prep was wearing a suicide vest albeit discovered after the shooting as being fake. The police had no alternative to cease brain function to prevent a possible explosion.

Greg Rudetsky

2nd December 2019 at 12:53 pm

Brendan is completely correct to mention that 9/11 pre-dated the recent wave of Islamist horror. Another Q.E.D for those who argue the connection between western interventionism and Islamism is the case of the Tunisian terrorist- Yacoubi, who, in 2015, gunned down all those British holiday makers. His stated motivation was the LACK of military response in Syria, and the indifference shown by America and her allies in light of Assad’s butchery. In other words: non-interventionism provoked an Islamist atrocity. Put that in your pipe, Corbyn, In truth, Islamism is a violent, irrational and supremacist ideology that has taken root in many settings and countries since the 7th century. The idea that modern political events can explain the actions inspired by it is deeply ahistorical, parochial and ignorant.

Jonnie Henly

2nd December 2019 at 6:21 pm

“In truth, Islamism is a violent, irrational and supremacist ideology that has taken root in many settings and countries since the 7th century”

And in recent times, it’s found especially fertile grounds in countries the West has interfered in.

Helped out, of course, by generous support from the West’s favourite Islamic nation, Saudi Arabia.

Cedar Grove

7th December 2019 at 12:12 pm

Saudi Arabia’s export of Wahhabism is not a reaction to western foreign policy, but an expression of autonomous purpose which began as soon as the oil money poured in.

david rawson

2nd December 2019 at 12:53 pm

A leopard can’t change its spots. and that is exactly what we are seeing & hearing on daily basis with Corbyn & his ilk.

The sad thing is, public services are woefully under-funded in the UK, as compared to most comparative nations, but any possibly reasonable ideas are drowned out by the hate, bile & anti-British rhetoric spewed from the Left’s gobs

Marvin Jones

2nd December 2019 at 12:31 pm

Anyone else worried of the support for Corbyn and his Commies will help him if the numbers are added together of Momentum, the Moslem millions, the migrants that have entered for the last ten years and the BME population as a whole? That’s why he loves terrorists and migrants.

George Orwell

2nd December 2019 at 12:23 pm

There is now an attempt to blame Johnson for politicising the attack but in fact it was politicised by his opponents at the TV debate the same day when several speakers including hypocrite Sturgeon immediately tried to place blame on the basis of ‘Tory cuts’ when in reality such cuts as there have been were nothing to do with it.
In reality the spend on terror protection has been increasing.
Johnson’s response was a fair point in response to politicisation by others.
One could even say that the previous Tory/Lib Dem government/ coalition was too ‘leftist’ on crime and punishment issues whereas Johnson nailed it as soon as he was appointed Prime Minister since he apparently highlighted the issue last August.
Looks like the only option is Johnson even if his Brexit approach is not perfect.

Jonnie Henly

2nd December 2019 at 6:16 pm

Oh sure, cutting police officers and prison spending defiantly has no link to increased crime. No sir.

Your name is very apt.

Think you’ll find also that numerous Tories were politicizing the attack on the same day as well.

Danny Rees

2nd December 2019 at 12:06 pm

” The left, including the left that currently runs the Labour Party, is myopically devoted to distracting attention from the Islamist threat. ‘What about the far right?’, they’ll say. Such cynical and spineless whataboutery wilfully overlooks that the far right has not killed anywhere near 500 people in Europe over the past five years — Islamists, on the other hand, have. ‘Don’t look back in anger’, we are told after Islamist attacks. In short, lay a flower, be sad for a day, and then move on — whatever you do, don’t talk about it.”

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/11/30/its-time-to-get-real-about-islamist-terror/

Jim Lawrie

2nd December 2019 at 6:06 pm

Іslаmіc fundamentalism “resulted in the deaths of 84,000 people – nearly 22,000 of them civilians – in 66 countries in 2017.”
That’s 230 a day.

The civilian toll is in fact much higher if you count as civilians those who take up arms to defend themselves, but are classified as soldiers. Lacking training, weaponry and military intelligence support, the death toll among them is high.

K Tojo

2nd December 2019 at 11:50 am

Judging by the rapidly disappearing gap between Labour and Conservative in the most recent opinion polls Corbyn could well be our next PM. It looks like the promise of freebies is working. Today Labour announced their latest vote winning wheeze: a 33% cut in train fares within one month of them getting into office! Where will the money come from? Who cares – just bring the fares down.

Many of us might be dismayed at the possiblility of an authoritarian, hard Left, anti-Western Momentum dominated government getting into power. Many more are prepared to vote for the promised handouts while remaining indifferent to the fine detail of Corbyinite extremism. Antisemitism? I already hear people saying that the Jews complain too much.

david rawson

2nd December 2019 at 1:00 pm

I’ve been saying for weeks on the Torygraph’s comments pages that Bozo is unlikely to secure a majority at the EU.

Freebies work. where is the Beebs detailed disection of Corbyn’s deranged mantra ? Or Sky’s ? Or ITVs ? Why do they keep repeating his debunked claim that Bozo will sell the NHS to Trump ? total insanity.

K Tojo

2nd December 2019 at 1:56 pm

Speaking of mantras, we are told that the internet has made broadcast news channels increasingly irrelevant. I don’t believe it. Andrew Marr, with his Sunday morning political interrogation show, behaves as though he were the moral compass of the nation and its grand inquisitor.

It would be tolerable if there were some genuine impartiality but our TV newshounds have their own set never questioned beliefs which they assume all right thinking members of the public must share. So, politicians are “grilled” over how enthusiastically they will support the current politically correct agenda. I suspect that a large part of Farage’s popularity lies in the belief (right or wrong) that he is the man most likely to throw this PC orthodoxy back into the faces of those self-important pundits.

Jonnie Henly

2nd December 2019 at 6:12 pm

It’s ironic to her someone complain of the “politically correct agenda” when their main arguments against Corbyn consist of more screeching about “antisemitism” and more fretting about the “anti Western hard left” etc etc……

If you don’t like PC, maybe don’t indulge in it so much.

Jim Lawrie

2nd December 2019 at 11:43 pm

I think the money will come under the cover of environmentalism in the form a massive hike in fuel tax that will force us all onto public transport.

H McLean

2nd December 2019 at 11:46 am

It’s a common conceit of middle-class lefties to view Muslims as lacking all personal agency and morality to the extent that the war in Iraq would leave them with absolutely no option but to violently attack non-believers. For a politician professing such a decidedly anti-imperialist worldview, Corbyn’s view of Muslims is pompous and condescending.

It’s true, the left accuses others of what they themselves are most guilty of.

Jonnie Henly

2nd December 2019 at 6:13 pm

No left winger actually thinks like that though.

Sorry to ruin your narrative, but there we go.

H McLean

2nd December 2019 at 8:33 pm

Jonnie, if you cannot to see that Corbyn is doing exactly that, and that the BBC and indeed all mainstream media do the same, you need to take the blinkers off. You refuse to see it because it hurts your conceited middle class sensibilities.

Jonnie Henly

2nd December 2019 at 10:01 pm

I’m plainly not the one wearing blinkers.
You appear desperate to build a straw man here so you can justify your moralising against the “middle class left”.

But your straw man is nothing more than that. You’re either deliberately dishonest or extremely ignorant as to actual views of left wing people – this is extremely common amongst right wingers. Especially self loathing middle class ones.

Cedar Grove

7th December 2019 at 12:07 pm

Indeed, they do, Muslims are always viewed as hapless victims.

Leftists insist that the cause of Islamic violence is poverty and/or lack of education – never mind that bin Laden was a millionaire, or that there have been public schoolboys, medical students and men from wealthy families engaging in these acts.

The Left also justifies terrorism by saying it is a response to racism, or a worthy desire to resist imperialism. But any personal grievance can be hijacked for recruitment purposes: & the objection to Empire is only that it is not governed by the glorious caliphate, but crass Americans.

As someone on the Left all her life, i find that the people who were once my comrades in struggle have become incapable of recognising that the US isn’t the only bad guy on the planet. As a freethinker and a woman, I prefer the iniquities of capitalism – greatly though they damage my life & everyone else’s – to a regime which would shroud me in black and govern my every thought and action, as well as weaponising oil money, and having no care for the continuity of other creatures or the earth.

Jerry Owen

2nd December 2019 at 11:13 am

I listened to Corbyn being interviewed by Sophie Ridge on tv yesterday. He was asked a specific question… Do you consider America as our ally?
He refused point blank to acknowledge America as an ally.
He also said that Begum should be allowed back into Britain to answer questions and receive ‘possible’ punishment !
The man is simply deranged.

Jim Lawrie

2nd December 2019 at 4:18 pm

He litanises from a narrow political script rote learned 50yrs ago. He cannot deviate because there is no space left in his thick, brainless skull. Small wonder he and Diane Abbott became an item.

The narrow anti-Americanism he learned as a “when in doubt, fits all questions” answer must be maintained in order to ensure the antifa and anti-imperialist vote.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.