In the aftermath of 7/7

On the 7th of July 2005 (often referred to as 7/7) many Londoners woke to the news that their gentle, culturally diverse city had been the victim of a coordinated suicide bomb attack which had left hundreds injured and many dead. The attacks were carried out during morning rush hour to ensure maximum loss of life. By the time the initial attacks were finished fifty-two civilians had been murdered and over seven hundred others had suffered non fatal injuries, some time later a forth explosion on a bus in Tavistock Square was to end the day’s violence. The attack came only a day after London had won its bid to host the 2012 Olympic games, which the city had long hoped for in the run up to the decision. Today London remembered its lost loved ones by both the prime minister David Cameron and acting mayor of London Boris Johnson laying flowers upon a memorial dedicated to the victims. However media coverage and public officials have been less than honest about who the victimized really were, which was immediately demonstrated by coverage of the event.

The powerful scene having came to a close was neatly given context by the nearby BBC reporter, who first introduced an imam to help viewers understand the sadness and hurt of all people in all communities throughout the nation, but especially Muslims during these difficult times. Yet how jarring to hear Muslims being singled out for special treatment after being carefully told that we’ve each (regardless of religious) been made into victims, for what reason does the media name and perhaps even shame the Muslim community by playing an apologist to people who they insist had nothing to do with the crime. It’s seemingly without sense to it to make a special case of Muslims, they weren’t singled out by the British media for their exceptional suffering after conflicts erupted in northern Ireland during the notorious “troubles”, neither was our nation in the dreaded clutches of Islam phobia after having experienced the Holocaust horrors or world war two.

So why now, why do these tragedies in particular bring about (in some cases) something akin to the celebration of Muslims and Islam. To say such an accusation is overstated is to ignore newspaper articles and television programs which appear like clockwork whenever the anniversary of an Islamic atrocity comes into view, with pieces like “Muslim 7/7 bomb survivor: Islamophobic Britain makes me fear for my children” and the titled story “7/7 London bombings: Mosques around UK hold ‘prayer for peace’ events in memory of those who died” leading the charge. Is it possible that, despite protesting otherwise, these organizations really know there’s an Islamic element to the entire conflict.

Of course there’s an Islamic element to be found in these horrors, every member of the 7/7 terrorist group identified as Muslim, in addition to two of the four having given interviews in which they spoke about Islam, their prophet Muhammad and an Islamic duty to wage war. One of the terrorists, Mohammad Sidique Khan, described his motives like so: ‘I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn’t come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true god and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger.’

Moreover these men claimed to be “soldiers at war” with regards to the innocent people they murdered, in another part of the tapes they continue: “…I myself, I myself, I make dua (pray) to Allah…to raise me amongst those whom I love like the prophets, the messengers, the martyrs and today’s heroes like our beloved Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and all the other brothers and sisters that are fighting in the…of this cause. ”

How does the media reply to such powerful evidence that these men’s Islamic duty was, at least in their own eyes, to fight and slaughter the infidel. In truth they offer no reply, merely an orderly diet of pro Islamic propaganda, as a consequence honest people can only read, research and understand for themselves who these men were without the aid of a media gone mad. Since that sad day 1,400 non-Muslim children have been sexually exploited by Muslim rape gangs, drummer Lee Rigby was also beheaded in broad daylight, what’s more more British Muslims have joined Islamic militant groups than have joined the country’s armed forces in the effort to fight them. Britain consistently and deliberately praises the very belief system which has led to such human misery, for which there won’t be an end to that same misery.

Why though are powerful media outlets lining up to defend and even lie for Islam, they themselves write of an anti-Muslim backlash from which the ordinary (by which they mean nominal) Muslim needs protecting against. notes that there’s no such fear of a similar anti-Christian trend beginning, rather they write: ‘A February 2012 BBC report on a church attack in Nigeria that left three Christians dead, including a toddler, objectively states the bare bone facts in one sentence. Then it jumps to apparently the really big news: that “the bombing sparked a riot by Christian youths, with reports that at least two Muslims were killed in the violence. The two men were dragged off their bikes after being stopped at a roadblock set up by the rioters, police said. A row of Muslim-owned shops was also burned…”’

Though the writer continues: ‘A New York Times report that appeared on December 25, 2011—the day after Boko Haram bombed several churches during Christmas Eve services, leaving some 40 dead—said that such church bombings threaten “to exploit the already frayed relations between Nigeria’s nearly evenly split populations of Christians and Muslims…” Such an assertion suggests that both Christians and Muslims are equally motivated by religious hostility—even as one seeks in vain for Christian terror organizations that bomb mosques in Nigeria to screams of “Christ is Great!”’ Moreover: ‘Continuing to grasp for straws, the same NYT report suggests that the Nigerian government’s “heavy-handed” response to Boko Haram is responsible for its terror, and even manages to invoke another mainstream media favorite: the poverty-causes-terrorism myth.’

‘If only Muslim terrorists had more money, land and love, then they wouldn’t be raping and bombing people out of the sickness of their heart!’ Is how the elites in government and the media excuse the murder of innocent woman and children, they then take the bizarre step of disparaging Christians who are equally poor, dispossessed and hurt, yet they’re harming no one. Concluding his piece on the subject the writer goes on: ‘Whether Muslim mayhem is taking place in the Islamic or Western worlds, the mainstream media shows remarkable consistency in employing an arsenal of semantic games, key phrases, convenient omissions, and moral relativism to portray such violence as a product of anything and everything—political and historical grievances, “Islamophobia,” individual insanity, poverty and ignorance, territorial disputes—not Islam. As such, Western mainstream media keep Western majorities in the dark about the Islamic threat, here and abroad. Thus the “MSM” protects and enables the Islamic agenda—irrespective of whether its distortions are a product of intent, political correctness, or sheer stupidity.’

Another writer explains that in the first five months of 2014 no less than thirty-six nations have been subject to terror attacks by Muslim extremists, these nations included: ‘Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Central African Republic (CAR), Chechnya, China, Dagestan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti , Egypt, Ghana, India, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Russia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, the United States, and Yemen.’ Nevertheless, ‘if you read The New York Times you will not have this perspective. You will have been informed, day after day, that Israel is a genocidal, apartheid state–not that Sudan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan are; that Muslims are being persecuted, falsely accused, singled out in hate crimes and entrapped by the police to report on mosque activities both in Europe and in the United States; that individual acts of terrorism aka “Sudden Jihad Syndrome” are always the acts of lone madmen and must be classified as “workplace violence as was Dr. Nidal Hassan’s massacre at Ft Hood;” that conservative Christians are even greater terrorist threats than Muslims are.’

Where’s the petrifying fear of anti-Jewish or anti-Christian sentiment rising with such stories as the above, there’s none. However the steady, almost mesmeric feed of pro Islamic propaganda (we’re told) is for the greater good, to prevent discrimination. Why shouldn’t people be discriminating though, by which I mean why are people expected to not discriminate when two things or more are clearly different, if we would discriminate between a toothbrush and a rusty blade when it comes to brushing our teeth how much more should we discriminate against ideologies which could end our days (teeth and all.) Islam is that rusty blade, and if you think otherwise I can only write take it up with the terrorists, they’re behaving as Muhammad himself did, and if Muhammad isn’t a real Muslim then there’s no such thing. Today being the anniversary of 7/7 isn’t about Islam, nor nominal Muslims, it’s about the victims who were taken by callous murderers before their time. It’s also about stopping this sort of tragedy from happening again, though that’s not going to happen by pandering or pondering over the pages of the Quran, it’s going to happen by closing it once and for all.

― T. C. M

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s