Farooq Siddique: Where is media frenzy over suspected terror arsenal?
Counter-terrorism officers in England recently announced the largest seizure of a suspected terrorist arsenal since the IRA mainland bombings of the early 1990s.
In raids on more than 20 properties in the past six weeks, police found more than 300 weapons and 80 bombs including rocket launchers, grenades, pipe bombs and dozens of firearms.
Altogether 32 people have been questioned, several have already been charged, and more arrests are expected imminently.
That's quite alarming isn't it? It surely deserves the attention of our national media doesn't it?
So, where was the rolling 24-hour media coverage of it all? Where were the live interviews with the neighbours, the helicopters in the sky, the media camped at the end of the street?
Where was it all? Did you notice it? Did you see any front page newspaper headline screaming how "against our way of life" all this was?
I didn't.
Strange indeed, until you realise that the alleged conspirators were NOT linked to Al-Qaeda, nor were they Muslim. The conspirators were "allegedly" white supremacists, "allegedly" preparing a campaign of terror bombings, "allegedly" against mosques across the UK.
Now, let's be honest. If this was, God forbid, Muslims that had been found with such an arsenal of weaponry, would the media coverage not have been non-stop?
Would it not have been so intense, that every Muslim in the UK would have felt obliged, the very next day, to distance themselves from the actions of the alleged "extremists", in front of their neighbours, their friends, their work colleagues, their families, their children?
If I sound just a tad little cynical here, forgive me, it is purely intentional.
Am I suggesting that our media, with a few honourable exceptions, is not colour blind? Am I suggesting that our media gives more attention to a particular crime because of the colour or creed of the perpetrator?
Or am I, more interestingly, suggesting that the media is simply reflecting the natural bias in a general public, more willing to read stories about a particular crime depending on the colour and creed of the perpetrator? It's a conundrum of the chicken and egg. Which comes first?
Here's another example of the conundrum. Two trials ended last week. One of a Muslim would-be terrorist and one of a white supremacist would-be terrorist.
The first is Isa Ibrahim of Bristol whose plot to bomb Broadmead was foiled.
His defence was that he was a fantasist who had few friends; he talked to teddy bears and felt that pretending to be a terrorist would make him look "cool".
His arrest and subsequent trial received top level national media coverage.
The other is Neil Lewington, whose defence similarly described him as a "silly immature alcoholic dysfunctional twit, fantasising to make up for a rather sad life". His arrest and trial did not get national media coverage.
The evidence suggests that both had the means to commit the alleged acts of terror.
Ask yourself, which would you rather read; a story about an alleged Al-Qaeda fanatic or an alleged white-supremacist fanatic planning terror campaigns?
And then ask yourself; what is the difference between one alleged terrorist willing to kill using a suicide attack and one alleged terrorist willing to kill because he believes he belongs to a superior race?
Perhaps then we can see which stories get front page coverage, and which don't.
8 Comments
by c bailey, south glos
Saturday, August 08 2009, 8:04AM
“Good article Farooq and you hit the nail on the head. In the last few years there have been quite a few white supremacists convicted for bomb making and hording weapons, and like your example most have barely made a mention in the national press. In the same period 100s of Muslims have been arrested and the vast majoirty of them released without charge to find themselevs outcasts in their community due to suspicions of others and fear of assocation. All these arrests have made headline news for days. What doesnt make headline news is when they have been released after many frightening days because they are totally innocent.
Its fairly sickening.”
by Martin, Knowle,Bristol
Monday, July 27 2009, 2:00PM
“What is being suggested here? The press couldn't be bothered to report the details? I think not.
The public wouldn't be interested? I think not.
No, the press and public are racist and involved in some kind of conspiracy against-well would you believe it-muslims. Drivel.
Its pretty obvious that the full details haven't been released yet. Its ongoing.”
by Nathan, Bristol
Sunday, July 26 2009, 12:04AM
“I'd like to challenge Mr Farooq to write an article without religion or race in it. When will we forget about religion and stop stirring emotions? Only when we rid ourselves of religion can we truly be at peace with each other.”
by Chief Druid, Horfield
Wednesday, July 22 2009, 8:12PM
“Note that it was fellow-Muslims, not the security apparatus, that tipped off the police. Also note that the Evening Post, at least, reported this rather than building up a "Muslim conspiracy".”
by Chief Druid, Horfield
Wednesday, July 22 2009, 8:01PM
“But surely all white people ARE racists? I read it in the Guardian, so it must be true.
That was possibly the most idiotic slogan ever coined - it practically justified the BNP.
All that being said, it strikes me that Isa Ibrahim has real mental health problems. Rather than a tool of a fanatical international conspiracy, I think we have a very sad young man, probably very like Neil Lewington at bottom.
Oh, and of course we got more coverage about OUR terrorist - this is Bristol, after all.”
by dogsauce, Pill
Wednesday, July 22 2009, 8:49AM
“I think it's shameful that the white community hasn't publicly stood up and denounced these terrorists and extremists in their midst. One might be forgiven for thinking all white people are terrorists.”
by Brendan, Bedminster
Tuesday, July 21 2009, 9:59PM
“Farooq, thank you, some interesting points. I think what you¿ve missed is the impact of the suicide attack phenomenon. It could be argued that the suicide bomber is not only a fearsome foe but even an invincible enemy if his aim is indiscriminate killing. I watched the Dispatches TV programme which told the story of the Mumbai attacks. The mobile phone conversations broadcast between the terrorists and their masters in Pakistan was probably the most chilling and depressing thing I¿ve ever heard. Global jihadists are well aware of the psychological impact of these type of attacks and seek to build on the fear and media hysteria that accompany it. The provisional IRA were a brutal enemy, they did however have some political objectives and while their attacks were callous they were usually at least accompanied by coded warnings to limit the loss of life, nevertheless you are right to flag up the renewed sectarian threat. However, if terrorism were translated into a football metaphor I don¿t think it would be unfair to put global Islamist militants at the top of the ¿premier league of terrorism¿ while the others you mention are pure 3rd division. The media like to write about what¿s going on at Man United not Rochdale.”
by lord lucan, south bristol
Tuesday, July 21 2009, 3:33PM
“Shall i tell you why the media is silence?Because they don't want Muslims kicking off.Ask the media why they don't mention the tensions Muslims cause in some northern towns.Same reasons.So stick that in your pipe and smoke it Farooq.”