Terror meets West

How do terrorists meet the freedom of the West?

Article One of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Certain members of a terrorist organisation can be persuaded to kill themselves and others in the name of the cause, and they tend to follow a certain profile...

• They mistake 'freedom to do what you like' for true freedom, have no understanding of levels and types of freedom, they are weak on 'reason and conscience'...
• Have more 'freedom' (to do what they like in the lowest sense) than they can handle;  the auto-destruction of alcohol abuse, drugs, unhealthy relationships of all kinds, lack of effective education/fulfulling employment crime, violent crime...
• And/or see in the West the people who can't handle it, (or can't at the moment) and people and organisations manifestly morally degraded, harming society and humanity, and judge the entire Western freedom culture on the basis of this.
• When they terrorise in a 'free' country,  they meet the opposite extreme, the price of abusing freedom;  condemnation, punishment, control, ejection, rejection.
• When they meet their extremist terrorist Muslim 'family', they meet a strong father, rules, structure, limits and respect.  They lack this structure, they are 'saved' from their damage and self-destruction.  At last they are 'freed' from their meaningless lives, have a sense of self-worth and a place in a family/society...a sense of brotherhood (and personal power, particularly if prepared to lay down their lives)   They feel in their guts, they live in their experience, how the Islamic Shariah can save, the others can be saved, and if they won't accept this, they must be forced.  The Infidel refuses salvation and will not therefore be saved...(and can and should be killed).  
• They perceive terrible suffering in the world and understand the West's part in this in history and today, from a particular perspective only.  Upon 'waking' to this immense suffering,  experiencing it as happening to their brothers,  they undergo terrible trauma.
• They perceive and understand that the West is attacking them as Muslims, and their saving law, the Shariah, and Mohammed himself, the most sacred prophet of the God Allah.
• They perceive themselves to be in a state of War, where the rules of war apply, some targets are 'fair game', the enemy, civilians may get killed, or in extreme cases, civilians of all sorts, as Infidel, are legitimate enemies to kill.
• They perceive themselves at war with the West, and with the freedom of the West

PHEW!
So what can we do?
In a free, or towards freedom society, state, or Western world, how to we begin to tackle this?

Firstly the suffering and war in the world IS a terrible trauma, it IS happening to our brothers and sisters, and we can be grateful that someone in the world at least is waking to it, facing it, feeling it and wants good for the world, rather than concentrating on the latest nail bar.

Secondly, and finally, we can work on ourselves.  Too many of us don't know what true freedom might be or how to work towards it, or why it's important, (even though we might be living something of it in our souls or society).  What would happen if each of us made an effort to work with the particular people and experiences which arrive at our doorstep each day, to respect humanity in its particular form, to recognise and transform suffering, to get in touch with and develop our own inner morality, to become more fully conscious of who we are, who we can be, who we choose to be?   I think this is what we are doing!  We have in the West enough freedom, each of us, to be able to tread our own highly individual path of personal evolution.  Terrorism can be used as a call to intensify this work on ourselves...which in turn is vital for all of us.

Too many of us are unable to handle the 'freedom' of the West, are on a path to auto-destruction and the destruction of others, can we help them?   What do we need to understand, to do, to surround and embrace these suffering individuals who make us suffer?

If we can't at least try, with all our might, do this for our own 'family', for the citizens of our own state how can we expect to handle the problems underlying the Islamic State?  If we meet the hate with hate, the war with war;  then we will have a world of hate and war, it's a simple logic.

Protection, or Military State?

Giving up freedom for 'freedom' from terror;  do we want to become a military state?

I cannot help but notice that the 'political' response to the recent French terrorist attacks places emphasis on physical defence;   soldiers police and guns. I can discern very little heartfelt or thorough thought about freedom, or about the tracking and monitoring of known terrorists, which seem to me effective ways of preventing terrorism.

For example, I watched an interview with General Denis Favier, Directeur Generale de la Gendarmerie Nationale and the gist of it was 'our police were very well co-ordinated' - he obviously couldn't say very much, for security reasons.    It was like listening to someone evaluating his performance in a video game.  But one thing I read from behind the public performance,  is just how seriously the police take this, and the sneaking feeling that they can't manage alone.

Francois Hollande's ghastly mediocre mutterings in the aftermath seemed to be largely about the same subject, blank praise for the police, and as for the rest, it was as if he were reading out the minutes of a boring meeting.  As far as I'm
concerned, hearts and minds were not touched by our state representatives.  They are touched by people making strong, individual moral stands, posted on social media sites.  Unless of course these statements manufactured by politicians with atavars, or murky manipulative characters).


In France we will soon be quite used to Muslim and Jewish schools behind metal fences guarded by armed soldiers or police.  The La Defense shopping mall near where JC works is today patrolled by armed soldiers. School-guns, shopping-soldiers, normal associations?  It will become a way of life, and we will feel
grateful for the visible 'protection'.  Perhaps we will not realise we are marching happily and willingly into a police state, it's appearance and mechanism at least, supposedly there to guard and represent our life and freedom, without a thought for who is, or might one day be behind a move to 'militarise', or take advantage of the structure being in place.   In the meantime, with all this army drama, are we as individuals, going to neglect to think about freedom, and talk about it and strengthen it in our hearts and strengthen our loving and compassionate relationships and do the things which really generate peace?

Surveillance of the Kouachi brothers behind the Charlie Hebdo massacre had been called off only six months before the attack because they were deemed low risk, French media reported on Saturday. WHAT WHAT WHAT???  Please read this again!

I can understand that the people charged with national defence against terrorism, from the top secret 'experts' down to the every day policers of our state,  cannot direct their attention to everyone, but please, known terrorists?

What happens with known terrorists, or any other significant criminal suspect, is that the police go cap in hand to the Powers to ask for information.  The Powers nowadays are those with Information such as Google, or telephone companies.  The deal is, these Powers sell us something which we can't live without in normal society (phones, social media networking) and we supply them freely with all the information they need to get complete pictures about each of us and all of us, for them to sell it and become very rich and powerful;  and in turn take over other companies and become an unelected and unchecked world superpower.  The people who make the most important decisions about our national security are in large part information company executives, and their staff, perhaps even a terrorist who is on the staff who knows? 

But anyway, for the moment, these companies are willing or obliged to give information to the 'defenders of the nation' on demand.  However, technically, the police cannot ask these Powers to release information on just anyone because after all, we do believe very strongly in freedom of expression and movement, confidentiality, private life...um, do we?  We're giving it away hand over fist, without a thought about what we are giving away, and who we might be giving it to!

It doesn't make any sense to me to not use this power of information to track terrorists, and to pay instead for armed guards for...everyone?    And it doesn't make any sense to me to parade people with guns in front of our schools.  There were two policemen with guns outside Charlie Hebdo and they got shot.  The police I've seen on the news outside a Jewish school (24 hour guard for the foreseeable future) have no head protection, they can be killed just like the rest of us.

Here's an example of what I'm trying to get at;  if we took protecting ourselves and our freedom seriously,  we would be tracking not only extremist hate-think indoctrinators, but getting to know the people vulnerable to their attacks, and doing all we could to protect them from indoctrination, and finding out whether they have been recruited, and tracking them if so.   And when such a vulnerable person is in prison, (Cherif Karouchi, Amedy Coulibaly) would we allow him access to a free residential radicalisation training course with Djamel Beghal or Farid Benyettou?  Well would we?  Can we not control radical terrorists in prison, in France?  And then not track the newly radicalised when they are released?   If our national security people think radicalisation wears off in time they need to think again.   Are we directing our attention in the right place?

(Perhaps one of Google's machines is tracking key words in this piece and if it's part of a general trend, will flog it off to someone who wants to know...)

Killer thoughts

Amedy Coulibaly's mother has condemned her dead son's horrific actions and called for them to be dissociated from the name of Islam.  He was radicalised whilst in prison for armed robbery, by Djamel Beghal.

Djamel Beghal, hate-thinker, but not the top hate-thinker...

Amedy was described by a psychiatrist as an 'immature and sociopathic' character with 'poor powers of introspection'.


Amedy was a poor thinker, with a poor ability to get in touch with his own interior humanity, and was easy prey for hate-thinkers.  These are the 'outside' thoughts which armed him and primed him for suicidal terrorist action;

One 'Us' (good) and One 'You' (bad);   no individualisation, no individual thinking on the part of the killer
We are one (that is, members of The Islamic State under "The Caliphate"/ Islamic Governor, with no distinction between any individual Muslim;  obvious inconsistency, his friends killed a Muslim and he could well have done)
You are one (no distinction between any individual French or world citizen, or between French citizen and the French State, the French state and any other state, country of the world etc)
You attacked us for following Islamic Moral Law (Sharia) (v. questionable interpretation)
You don't own the world
We fight back
Don't play the victim, you asked for this and you deserve it.
What I do (individual suicide terrorist killer) is just and legitimate under  the law of Sharia (and not from personal introspection.  It is innacurate to say the law legitimises, someone thinks it all out for him, his individual action in his individual circumstances, using a human interpretation of Sharia;  others decide what is  legitimate for Amedy to do as an individual, and this human intervention is mistakenly called The Law)
(Thoughts distilled from video posted by Amedy Coulibaly)           

Summary:  Amedy had very little capacity for individual thought and therefore very little true freedom, and gave up any freedom he might have had, and his life, to hate-thinkers.  Hate thinking in the form of Amedy, murdered:

Clarissa JEAN-PHILIPPE Yoav HATTAB, Philippe BRAHAM, Yohan COHEN, François-Michel SAADA and Amedy COULIBALY himself.


We feel terrible emotion about terrorism.    But when we are tempted into hate-thinking, let's think again. 




(Thoughts distilled from video posted by Amedy Coulibaly)             

Penser Liberté

En France, nous pensons beaucoup récemment à la liberté, grâce à Dieu.

Jusqu’à maintenant nous n'avons pas trop pensé à notre liberté, et nous ne l'avons pas assez défendue.

Comment défendre la liberté?
Comment avons-nous manqué notre devoir envers les dessinateurs de Charlie Hebdo, et les autres qui ont été tués?  Avons-nous échoué à les pourvoir avec une défense militaire suffisante?  Les frères Kouachi étaient pourvus eux de deux kalachnikov et les compétences requises pour s'en servir, et pouvaient en tant que libres citoyens français conduire jusqu’à Paris centre un beau matin, tirer sur les deux policiers en garde à la porte de Charlie Hebdo, forcer la personne à l'accueil à ouvrir la porte (sous peine de tuer son tout-petit qu'elle venait de prendre de la crèche) et tuer quiconque leur faisait offense.

Combien de soldats armés, d'hélicoptaires, d’espions, de politiciens, commandants militaires faut-il pour protéger chaque personne considérée « offensante » par l'un ou l'autre terroriste?

Un cancer une fois développé nécessite un traitement 'violent', d’être excisé par la chirurgie ou attaqué par les tueurs connus des radiations ou de la thérapie chimique, ainsi un terroriste armé en liberté doit être arrêté par la violence.  Mais la protection véritable de la liberté n'est gagnée ni par la violence, ni par la non-violence physique du cyberterrorisme (comme le collectif « Anonymous » par exemple). Il faut décourager le développement du terrorisme, empêcher qu'il prenne prise;  la liberté est protégée par le penser - le penser individuel, et le penser collectif du plus grand nombre.

Nous représentons ce fait symboliquement par la réponse « Je Suis Charlie' ». Nous « comprenons » immédiatement;   « toi, terroriste, tu peux assassiner un penseur libre, mais qu'est-ce que tu va faire quand tu te rendra compte qu'à partir de ton acte, les penseurs libres se multiplient, que nous sommes tous des penseurs libres, que nous sommes légions, et solidaires ?»  Certains ont écrit ce symbole sur leur front, endroit archétypal du penser.  Mais est-ce que nous avons vraiment pensé la liberté? 

Les vraies armes des actes de terrorisme suicidaires, sont des pensées de haine.
 Un certain type de pensées, dirigées au bon moment vers des personnes faibles sont susceptibles de donner naissance aux monstres que sont devenus les frères Kouachi.   Farid Benyettou a armé Chérif Kouachi et l'a rendu prêt à l'action ainsi:  "Farid m'a dit que les Écritures donne la preuve véritable du bien des attentats suicides.  Il est écrit qu'il est bien de mourir en martyre".

Les chaînes d'influence,  ou commencent-elles?

Abu Qatada, qui a influencé...

....Djamal Beghal, qui a influencé...

...Farid Benyettou....

Qui a armé Cherif Kouachi avec la pensée de haine...

Ces penseurs-haines sont souvent nés, élevés ou habitent dans des pays qui s'efforcent de construire une société libre, comme La France, La Grande Bretagne, Les États Unis.  Ils sont souvent dégoûtés par la souffrance de leurs frères du fait des guerres, de la pauvreté et la misère, et le contraste avec la décadence de l'ouest.

Anwar Al-Aulaqi,Americain d'origine Yemeni,  depuis l'age de 7 ans il passe son enfance au Yemen et rentre en Amerique pour ses etudes universitaires.   Son père etait un érudit et une personalité publique respectée

L'indexe qui pointe nous indique « Je sais La Loi d'en Haut».  La Loi des temps anciens, quand l’humanité était un tout-petit enfant qui avait besoin de directives strictes et protection, mais qui ne s'applique plus à notre temps, où nous nous efforçons et luttons pour créer une société libre, pour gagner chacun notre indépendance.  Mais, nous gardons des lois sacrées quand  même,  individualisées, vraiment ressenties, au fur et à mesure que nous évoluons, essayons de devenir qui nous sommes véritablement.  Personnellement, j’évite de dénigrer ou de profaner quelque chose qui est sacré pour l'autre, parce que je tiens l'autre sacré en tant qu’être humain (ou au moins potentiellement, au coeur).    Cependant je dirais « Je suis Charlie » parce que la liberté d'expression est vitale pour l’évolution de notre société, où chaque individu a besoin de coévoluer sur son propre chemin pour faire évoluer le 'tout' qui est notre société, notre pays, notre monde.  D’être offensé par quelqu'un n'est pas une raison de tuer, bien que nos passions puissent être enflammées.

Comment traiter les gens qui sont en quelque sorte « dépassés », qui essaient d'imposer leur loi comme La Loi?

Abu Hamza al-Masri, ex-Imam de la Mosquée « North London Central » est arrivé en Angleterre de l’Égypte et a dit;  "l'Angleterre est un paradis où tu peux faire tout ce que tu veux".  Il n’était pas habitué à une telle liberté, il ne savait pas comment s'en servir.  Il a passé son temps au paradis en apprenant comment le détruire par le terrorisme; il est rejeté de sa Mosquée et du paradis, pour terminer ses jours dans une prison Américaine.  Qu'est-ce que cette liberté dont nous sommes si fiers?

Le mot « liberté » se lève encore et toujours depuis l'assassinat de Charlie Hebdo.  Qu'est-ce que la liberté?  Pourquoi est-elle aussi importante pour nous?  Nous sommes presque là avec la pensée/sentiment "Je suis Charlie" que nous tirons de cette attaque.  La terrorisme chez nous peut nous apprendre que nous ne pouvons plus laisser les philosophes, les érudits, les défenseurs des Droit de l’Homme, les politiciens à penser pour nous; pour défendre la liberté nous devons tous penser liberté.