An on-line journal of articles and musings forbidden by the mainstream media.
Monday, July 25, 2005
London: Suicide Decoys and Humanitarian Terrorists? By Nicholas Stix
'Peace Activists for Terrorism,’ would have been a more accurate slogan on the signs carried by “peace activists” demonstrating outside the London tube (subway) station on Sunday where Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes had been shot to death by a London police officer on Friday.
Demonstrators (for once, that’s not a euphemism for “rioters”) gathered outside the station to condemn the shooting, and to call for police to refrain from ever using deadly force in dealing with individuals whom they believe to be terrorists about to blow up themselves and everyone in the vicinity.
The bobby who shot Jean Charles de Menezes was under orders to take “head shots,” because a body shot, the usual procedure (because it offers the largest target), might set off the explosives under a suicide bomber’s coat.
According to alleged reporter Teri Okita, in London for CBS’ New York affiliate, most of the demonstrators were immigrants and Muslims. It apparently didn’t occur to Okita that if anything, Muslims and immigrants demonstrating against necessary anti-terrorism security measures after two coordinated attacks in two weeks, if taken seriously, would lead the British populace to infer that Muslims and immigrants are all either terrorists or their supporters.
Were the London police to stop shooting people who act as Jean Charles de Menezes did, it would be music to terrorists’ ears.
The one demonstrator whom Okita interviewed at length, and who condemned the British government, was Caoimhe Butterly. Okita didn’t give her viewers any background on Butterly. And with good reason.
Caoimhe Butterly is a terrorist -- a postmodern, humanitarian terrorist. What that means is, she doesn’t to my knowledge fashion bombs or shoot people. She helps other people do that.
Anywhere in the world where Butterly sees Western or Western-style democracies besieged by or at war with terrorists or Stalinists, she hops on a plane, to show up and give aid and comfort to the terrorists/Stalinists. Thus, she has helped Arab terrorists in Israel, and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Now, she is trying to help al Qaeda in London.
Caoimhe Butterly calls herself variously a “peace activist,” “peace worker,” and “human rights” activist, but she no more believes in those things than I believe in Islam. When Stalinist dictator Saddam Hussein was murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people, Butterly did not go to Iraq to protest his barbarity; heck she didn’t even protest him from the safety of the West. But on the eve of Gulf II, she went to Iraq to act as a human shield.
Similarly, she has never sought to act as a human shield to protect innocent Israeli Jews from Arab homicide bombers. Instead, she went to the territories, and sought to get Israeli soldiers killed by Arab terrorists.
Her m.o. is to protect terrorists by standing in front of them, so that Israeli soldiers will be confused and inhibited by the sight of an unarmed woman, so that the soldiers can be killed either by the terrorists she is shielding or by other terrorists in the vicinity whom the soldiers do not notice, while they are being distracted by Butterly. The proper thing to do, as with any terrorist, would be to shoot her dead, but Butterly, like all terrorists (and totalitarians), uses her victims’ humanity against them. A soldier who killed her would likely be emotionally shattered.
She also entered Yassir Arafat’s compound in Ramallah in 2002, donning a medic’s vest to disguise herself. Arab terrorists have for years used this method, to attack Israeli Jews using the ambulances of the Red Crescent, which is itself a dual purpose organization: ambulance service and terrorist front.
In Israel, Butterly worked with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a humanitarian terrorist organization. The SMSM portrayed the ISM as a humanitarian peace organization, but as I showed at the time, its Web site openly supported terrorism against Jews. One of the ISM’s leaders, Adam Shapiro also donned a medic’s vest, in order to sneak into Arafat’s compound, as part of a coordinated publicity stunt with Butterly.
Shapiro lied, claiming he had never before met Arafat, lied in calling himself a Jew, rather than admitting that he had repudiated Judaism years before, and lied in saying that he was a peace worker. I called him a “Jewish Nazi,” although one could argue that I was only half-right. Since he had repudiated Judaism, perhaps I should have only called him a Nazi. (See also “‘Pacifist's’ Brother Threatens Journalist” and “War is Peace: We are All Pacifists Now.”
The ISM (Butterly, Shapiro, & Co.) acted not only as human shields, but sabotaged Israeli security barriers, in order to help Arab terrorists attack Israeli Jews. Under the traditional laws of war, saboteurs -- armed or no -- may be shot on sight. And Butterley was wounded in the thigh. Her propaganda cadres used her wounding to extol even more her "heroism," instead of her sabotage and terrorism.
At the time, the ISM called on other nations to rise to the defense of the PLO and Arafat, and make war on Israel. Note that it was Arafat who planned and started the war, and who had no interest in peace. Butterly and Shapiro didn’t seek peace; they sought and still seek the annihilation of the Jews of Israel. But then, Hitler also claimed to be a pacifist.
Butterly could not do this alone, but she has for years been blessed with a cadre of leftwing propagandists posing as journalists. And so, “documentary film-maker” Katie Barlow, told so many lies on Butterly’s behalf in the pages of The Guardian, that it proved too much even for The Guardian’s editors. Not that they minded helping to spread the Jenin blood libel, but they simply could not abide Barlow’s exaggerating the number of armed Arab terrorists who accompanied Butterly on one of her jaunts in the territories.
(Note that Butterly and Shapiro both use the identical cover story about having been influenced by the non-violent teachings of Gandhi and King.)
In case you are wondering why a communist would so enthusiastically embrace Islamic terrorists and dictators, communists have always sought out any group that they see as opposed to capital, and seek to manipulate that group to die fighting their revolution for them. In America, communists started seeking to use blacks during the Great Depression, but didn’t enjoy much success until the 1960s, when blacks’ own political and religious leaders sold them out, for the leaders’ own wealth and power.
About the same time, as Lee Harris has written, communists developed third world theory, in which they sought to conscript the entire world’s poor to fight their revolution. Ok, so the communists are atheistic materialists, the Arabs fighting the West tend to be wealthy aristocrats who seek to impose a medieval theocracy and enslave women. You can’t have everything.
If her history is any guide, look for Caoimhe Butterly to go beyond non-violent demonstrations to more active support of al Qaeda, perhaps in the form of sabotage.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s … not a duck?
That is exactly what al Qaeda supporters in London are now insisting, in the wake of the police shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. The police have announced that de Menezes was not a terrorist.
Let’s see. De Menezes came out of a suspected terrorist lair, dressed in terrorist uniform: Shaved head, beard, heavy, padded, winter coat on a summer’s day. If he wasn’t a terrorist, he worked awfully hard to look like one.
If you know that bad guys wear a certain “uniform,” don’t put on the same uniform, unless you are willing to accept the consequences.
In America, we have had no end of trouble, over the past 15 or more years, due to middle-class black teenage boys and 20-something men’s obsession with looking like muggers. They find out the newest mugger’s uniform (during the late 1980s in New York, for instance, it was Oakland Raiders jackets, then it was baseball caps worn backwards; since I don’t ride the subways much these days, I’m not up on the current uniform.), and then dress in exactly that fashion. That alerts the police, who treat them with suspicion, which is exactly what the knuckleheads wanted. But then, instead of being manly about it, the black males, their parents, and their various comrades cry “Stereotyping!” “Racism!” “Racial profiling!”
(Now that I think about it, I wonder if the middle-class punks’ goal was not only to go slumming, and to show solidarity with muggers, but to deliberately confuse police as to who is a mugger.)
Jean Charles de Menezes didn’t just dress like a suicide bomber; he made his head and face look like one, too (given the winter coat on a high summer’s day, that is). And then he acted like one. When the police ordered him to stop, he ran toward a subway car full of people, leaping over barriers, and into the train.
De Menezes’ brother doesn’t believe police accounts of his brother’s behavior. He is careful, however, to refrain from calling all the civilian witnesses liars.
Imagine you’re a terrorist, and you have people willing to die for your goal of … spreading death. You’ve just had a failed mission, which led to a load of bad publicity, and a government crackdown. The thing you need most, until you can have the next attack, is a propaganda victory that casts the government as racist, fascist, and murderous. So, you send out a suicide decoy with no bomb to get shot, in order to discredit the police. Or maybe you just get lucky, due to some moron who unwittingly does your work for you. (As I have written before, stupidity kills.)
With the help of the useful idiots among the communists and media, assuming they are not the same people, the resulting discrediting of the police will result in the government handcuffing the police and getting security relaxed. And then, the terrorists will strike again, bigger than ever.
Jean Charles de Menezes was no innocent victim. Either he was suicidally stupid, or he was a suicide decoy.