How the Media Solve a Problem Like the Woolwich Attack

The English vocabulary will soon be depleted of words, if everybody starts speaking like the mainstream media. In connection with the Woolwich killing, the media talked about "religious centres", not "mosques", a now obsolete word. Other archaic, disused terms are "Islam" and "Muslim": we just say "man", "woman" and as useful data we add their age.

A news flash on BBC Radio 5 Live delivered the information that, basically, a man had been killed in Woolwich by two men, and there were another man and a woman, both 29, involved. Of course it is that magic age, 29, that makes all the difference. There are plenty of men and women aged 29 who go around slaughtering and slaying, but thankfully none aged 28 or 30. How could anyone listening to that news flash be enlightened on the nature of the act by this kind of very general, non-specific "information"?

A TV news reporter, in a desperate attempt to exculpate Islam, said that there have been more Muslims than non-Muslims killed by Muslim attacks.

What does that mean? The first victims of Islam are Muslims themselves, that seems pretty obvious to me. The simplest way to realize that is to look at the Muslim-majority countries of the world and see in what terrible state they are. But this does not exonerate the doctrine of Islam and its violent nature.

The media commentaries seem to attach a lot of importance to finding out whether this was a "lone wolf" attack or had an organization behind it, the assumption probably being that lone wolves should provoke less concern, causing only a one-off incident.

If that is the assumption, it's far from correct. If we have not had another 7/7 in London and generally the UK, it is because a vast amount of money and resources from our cash-strapped government has had to be allocated to the police and intelligence services' task of keeping an eye on the "Muslim community".

When an attack is planned, it is easier for the security services to discover the plan and foil it. Yesterday's murder, on the surface, looks like it might have been one without much planning or organization: these killings will be practically impossible to be prevented, as the police said.

Therefore, some other Muslim "lone wolf" who has observed the success of this murder and the impossibility of thwarting it may be encouraged to repeat the enterprise. It is likely that we will see many more of these attacks, since the plots by organized groups are more vulnerable to preventative actions by security services.

This is also the prediction of radical Muslim Anjem Choudary, who led the ominous-sounding group Islam4UK, in its own words "working for the establishment of the Shariah - to make it dominate all other ways of life." The group is now banned, but not on YouTube.

Choudary prophesied: "We are a very politicised community. Some people are angered by draconian measures such as 'stop and search' and restrictions on free speech. There is a chance of more lone wolf attacks happening again due to these draconian measures".

A TV commentator said that the killer we saw on a video speaking to the camera is British and has an obvious London accent, but still feels closer to places, like Afghanistan and Iraq, that he's probably never even visited.

But shouldn't that ring an alarm bell? Oughtn't that to be an indication that place of birth and accent are irrelevant in this context? Of course he feels loyal to his "brothers" in Muslim countries. The nation-state is a European invention that followed the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. For Islam the nation is the Ummah, all the world's Muslims. This man does not feel British, he feels Muslim - and many other Muslims living in the UK will feel the same allegiance to the "Nation of Islam", as in the name of a black racist and Islamic supremacist organization in the USA.

The pathetic utterances about searches for "motives" behind the murder are also ridiculous. There is nothing to search: the jihadist on the video shown by TV stations the world over makes it very clear.

In the fuller version of the video published by Jihad Watch, at the beginning he mentions Surat at-Tawba, the ninth sura (chapter) of the Qur'an, which contains exhortations to kill infidels. He says:

The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one. It is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the Shari'a in Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? Rather you lot are extreme. You are the ones that when you drop a bomb you think it hits one person? Or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family? This is the reality. By Allah if I saw your mother today with a buggy I would help her up the stairs. This is my nature. But we are forced by the Qur'an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu'ran, we must fight them as they fight us.

He also said that he wanted to "start a war in London tonight".

Could this be any clearer?

The only problem is that this is precisely the part that the mainstream media have cut out: it's not so much a search for motives that is needed, as refraining from covering them up.

It would appear that the jihadists were tired of media lies and wanted the public to know why they committed this atrocious beheading, in this day and age a quintessentially Islamic way of killing. The media won again, by depriving them (and more importantly us) of the benefit of telling (and hearing) the truth.

What a strange coincidence, having omitted just that highly explanatory bit!

The parents of at least one of the two perpetrators came from Nigeria, another interesting country where Muslims slaughter Christians like there's no tomorrow. Nigeria is in fact one of the worst countries in the world in this respect, called by International Christian Concern The deadliest place to be a Christian.

The Christianity Today blog has this information:

Nearly 1,000 Nigerian Christians were killed in 2012, and more than 100 have died in the first few months of 2013, according to Jubilee Campaign. Executive director Ann Buwalda says this accounts for “almost 70 percent of Christians killed globally” last year, making Nigeria “the most lethal country for Christians by a huge margin.”

But, in the West, who cares? And, further, who is informed by the media? After we've been ignoring what Nigerian Muslims do to people in their country, now they are carrying out the same job here. Will we still ignore it?

Another thing that may make you laugh or cry, depending on your temperament, is the recommendation not to wear uniform in public given by commanders to troops, which has led the soldiers to the opposite behaviour of posting pictures of themselves in uniform on social media.

What next? Clergy advised not to wear cassocks and dog collars? Oh that's already happened, after a number of Muslim attacks on priests in East London some years ago.

We have made so many concessions to Islam that one more or less doesn't make much difference. What's a uniform between friends?

This kind of advice is akin to trying to cure pneumonia with paracetamol. The real treatment would be a bit more radical (from "radix", the Latin word for "root"), going to the root of the problem, addressing the disease rather than the symptom: if there were no Muslims in Britain, there would hardly be any terror attacks.