In relation to the British governments response to the Manchester suicide bomber, it is most interesting to contrast how the Tory establishment treated IRA violence during the height of their campaigns, and this “Islamic” violence now. To put it simply, they refused to put troops on the streets of Britain no matter how bad IRA violence got, but they do so now over a single attack by a lone extremist. Terrible and sickening as the attack was, does it really warrant the state security response the British government is now implementing with gusto?
Whats the difference? Well, it seems to me the IRA had a clear political agenda behind their violence, re-unification of their country, an aim that the British establishment was afraid might seem understandable and reasonable to even its own people, therefore the states idea was to treat the war with the IRA as a criminal rather than political issue, to delegitimise it and its aims. Hence, they were “terrorists” not guerrillas or soldiers. The idea being that their only aim was to spread terror, for no reason other than being mad Irish, not because they wished to force Britain to withdraw from Ireland. Because they were officially just criminals then, this meant that troops and other reactions could not happen in Britain because this would mean a recognition of the military nature of the contest. So no matter how crazy it got, with constant disruptions, bombs, hoax bombs, mortar attacks, and huge truck bombs that wiped out Manchester city centre and Londons docklands and financial district, still they were merely criminals, which meant no militarisation of mainland Britain.
In stark contrast, Theresa May has ordered 5 400 troops onto the streets in aid of the civil power. She has done this by raising the threat level to ” critical” and thereby allowing herself to implement their pre-planned response “Operation Temperer”. This plan is supposed to be for when the country is under sustained multiple attacks by an organised enemy, something like 9/11 perhaps. But nothing like that has happened.
A disaffected youth in Britains immigrant community, who hails from a country that the British have interfered with recently, resulting in a bloody civil war and rising extremism, has become radicalised and committed an act of violence. There is no clear aim to this, other than revenge. (Although if any timing was involved, it may have been intended to influence the election) However, the primary motivation of the bomber must be basically that most ancient of Middle Eastern traditions “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth”. However, without demands, organisation or targeting of military or economic sites, this act can, and probably should, be treated as merely a criminal act, by one of its own citizens.
Here we see the incredible difference in how the British state treats violence depending on what its own political aims are. The Tories have been eagerly trying to equate the two forms of ” terrorism” in an attempt to link Corbyn in the popular imagination with sympathising with these acts of “terror” . But we can see that the states opposite responses to the IRA and this latest cycle of violence give the lie to them being the same thing. The problem for the Tories is that their brand of politics relies on an external enemy to survive. Without it, they are a busted flush, irrelevant. The IRA served the purpose well for decades, as fear of the Irish situation is deeply rooted in the English psyche since the brutal wars of the Elizabethan age, and there is an argument to be made that the British states methods of wielding and staying in power by using fear of an external enemy to control its own people was partly created through its involvement in Ireland. Therefore, to escape the cycle, a new relationship to Ireland must be negotiated. Corbyn represents that enlightened response,
Even when mortars were landing on Downing street, still there were no troops, and no “critical” warnings to ramp up the tensions were to be seen. No, because when there is a real threat to the system, then it is all about calming the populace, but when there is no threat to the system, merely sporadic violence by people frustrated at the hypocrisy and riddled with helplessness and anger, then these incidents can be used cynically by being treated as a political issue and used to justify extensions of the power of the state. The dishonesty of this is breathtaking.
Election campaign going badly? Nothing like a bit of terror and fear to distract everyone from any real issues and drive voters to the right, thinking that an aggresive response is wise. But respond to what? Another urban drop out who is borderline mentally ill? Is a military response correct to this! Of course not, it more likely will create more of what it purports to prevent. We could just as easily approach these incidents as pathological social phenomena of 21st century western societies, alienation, ghettoisation, disadvantage, structural racism, narcissism, the list goes on. There are many reasons for mass shootings and suicide bombings. Fact is, the establishment has shown by its behaviour that it doesn’t care about the people, those most exposed to these terrible events, like a virus inhabiting a cell, its priority is only that it remains the establishment, and no price is too high in the struggle for power. Democracy, truth, the very lives of the public, are all merely expendable means to an end, and that really is the ideology of extremism.
All is Motion 