British Terrorism

British involvement in the Ahvaz bombings in southern Iran on the 15 October 2005 have once again escaped Western media attention, as has all the British involvement in bombings and political assassinations in Southern Iraq, despite two SAS terrorists being captured in the act in Basra in October of this year. The inability of a heavily self-centred media that is intrinsically linked to the British government is to be expected but the constant denials of reality, voiced, I have to say, by the majority of British people is staggering and borders on national delusion.

It ought to have occurred to the British public that their government's foreign policy is malevolent, colonial and aggressive. It does not invade countries to free people - this is absurd: it invades country to pursue national self-interest. What inevitably ensues is genocide, terror and oppression.

Far from being a bastion of democracy, it is the exact opposite; it has consistently been against indigenous self-governance, free trade or national ownership of natural resources, it colonial during the Twentieth Century was greater than during the Nineteenth Century. The policy of neo-colonialism or the colonisation of national industries rather than nations and the installation of puppet regimes has proved far more effective than occupation. It is a policy that was adopted by the Americans but now is falling apart as exemplified by Iraq and Afghanistan.

The inability of the British public to accept the true nature of British foreign policy shows no sign of averting not one of the main political parties will ever concede British involvement in a contemporary act of terrorism, they will all admit to historic examples. But they will say: "that was then this is now" something which has been repeated by the major three political parties decade after decade.

For example whilst the SAS has many functions, however its primary function is as a terrorist organisation, whether in Northern Ireland, Rhodesia, Iraq or Iran, hardly any of the three SAS regiments' activities are conducted during wars. Most of its assassinations, sabotage, bombings, kidnappings and reconnaissance mission occur in foreign countries that are not at war with the UK. Hence in international law they would constitute acts of terrorism. This is why there is a British parliamentary convention not to discuss special forces or intelligence services operations because they are in the main illegal.

The failure to understand the nature of British foreign policy has had disastrous repercussions for British domestic policy; Britain claims to be the victim of Irish terrorism, persistently failing to acknowledge that Irish Republican political violence was reciprocity for British political violence in Ireland and later Northern Ireland.

However it has far more serious consequences now, the bombing on the 7 July were known about in advance by the British government because a warning was given to the Israeli former prime minister and war criminal, Netanyahu in advance of both bombings, as anyone watching ITN on the 7 July or viewing the internet will recall. This has never been satisfactorily explained. Most people are prepared to ignore this and assume that the British government had no involvement in the bombings either directly or indirectly. It may well be the case that the bombings were not engineered by the British government and that the advance notice is being covered up simply to conceal the incompetence of British intelligence agencies but such an assumption cannot be made in advance of the facts.

The British government was quick to accuse Iran of involvement in the insurgency a claim denied by the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Kurdish leader and Iraqi government officials , yet they expect the benefit of the doubt, even when they have a proven track record of perpetrating such acts of terrorism and maintain the SAS regiments to the that effect. If the British government can carry out a "terror outrage" in Iran and in Iraq, it can also do so in London.

Of course there will be the usual collection of block heads ready to denounce any suggestion of British complicity in the London bombings as a "conspiracy theory", as if this discredits a legitimate line of enquiry. Yet there is a difference between an unfounded conspiracy theory, such as the British government's claim that Iran was involved in insurgency in Southern Iraq (a claim from which they have now all but retreated from) and a conspiracy theory that is based upon sound evidence. There is certainly enough plausible evidence for this to be a legitimate line of enquiry.