‘MI5’s War on Terror rhetoric prepares future UK foreign interventions’

The “contradictory” war on terror rhetoric from MI5 security service head is first of all aimed at justifying UK’s future interventions into foreign states, anti-war activist Jim Brann told RT.

MI5 chief Andrew Parker has made his first public speech since taking charge of the UK’s security service this April as he shared his fears and concerns in an alarming address.

The security chief warned that the British public is under threat of attacks from thousands of Islamists and confessed that the country’s intelligence service hasn’t been perfect on all occasions.

Anti-war activist Jim Brann believes that Parker’s comments will make live harder for British Muslims, whom the government is portraying as the main threat to society.   

RT:What do you make of the statements by the MI5 chief? Why issue the warning now? If we look at the Terrorism Act that’s already in place, this has never lost priority with this government.  

Jim Brann: No, and it’s most general, I think you have to say that it’s all of a piece with the War on Terror, that’s to say there are certain things that he said that have some logic and there are certain things that he said that on the face of it have no logic. And they’re all bundled together under this rubric of the War on Terror.   

RT:Which of the statements lacked logic?

JB: For example, he said that people, who go to… I mean, clearly, there are people in the [UK], who go to Syria, and there’s some possibility that they may cause some problem, coming back here, because they’ll end up coming here. That has certain logic. On the other hand this line – it’s quite contradictory in his speech. He said that there are thousands of people in this country, who would plot, are plotting or in some stage of plotting. And on the other hand he said; “No, no.” He said that since 2000 we’ve dealt with two serious plots per year.  So, presumably these thousands of people plotting are completely unsuccessful.   

RT:Right, that’s not coherent to you. Parker mentioned the people fighting in Syria coming back, but what about the British extremists, who may have been involved in attacks elsewhere as we’ve heard about the speculation of their involvement in the recent Kenyan shopping mall attack? What do you make of that kind of threat?   

JB: I think this “White Widow” story – British citizen Samantha Lewthwaite has been labeled by the UK media as the “world’s most wanted woman” for her involvement in terrorist activity – I find it extremely dubious. They have to bolster this idea of the War on Terror as a coherent thing where the threat is coming from out there; the threat has nothing to do with what the British government does; it comes from out there and it remains out there. They have to present the thing that way and in that context they have, for example, this “White Widow” supposedly in Kenya.   

RT:And what does the British government want to justify by it?

JB: At its broadest, intervention everywhere. That’s the point. That’s the starting point to the War on Terror that we are justified in what we do because of the threat that already exists. Rather than that we are creating the threat.

RT:In the context of British society, we’ve seen this kind of fear of terrorists as it impacts British Muslims.  What impact will this have now?

JB: You speak to young Muslims and they’re extremely disturbed with this constant presentation of them basically being a threat. And if you say “there are thousands” then people should really look around. They should look at people, look at mosques and be worried. That’s the gist of it. And there’ll be… especially, young Muslims will be worried, no doubt.